Case 44a-230-2011

The head doctor of a Russian Medical Centre issued an extract from a private citizen’s patient card to be used as evidence in a civil case without the patient’s consent or a court request. Article 61 of the Fundamental Legislation of the Russian Federation of the Healthcare of Citizens restricts access to health information as a matter of medical secrecy.

The head doctor was found guilty of committing the administrative offense but was exempted from responsibility through Article 2.9 of the CoAO RF, which authorizes a judicial officer or body to limit liability to a reprimand in cases of insignificant administrative offences. A supervisory complaint was submitted, arguing that the termination of the proceedings was wrongful and the offense was not insignificant.

The Court held that the findings of the justice of the peace of the regional court were correct. The Court agreed that there had been a violation of the letter of the law, but that the violation was insignificant. The Court held that the lower court acted reasonably and came to the correct conclusion in finding the medical information was used only for the civil case and only reprimanding the doctor.

“Учитывая, что сведения, содержащие врачебную тайну, полученные от С.Ю. К. и М., были использованы этими лицами исключительно в целях рассмотрения гражданского дела в суде, достоянием иных посторонних лиц эта информация не стала, доказательств наступления неблагоприятных последствий для С. вследствие указанных действий С.Ю. представлено не было, судебные инстанции сделали обоснованный вывод о малозначительности правонарушения в действиях С.Ю., объявили ему устное замечание и прекратили производство по делу.” (Pages 1-2)

“Taking into account that information received by K. and M. from S.U., which included medical secrecy, was used by these persons solely for the consideration of the civil case in the court, others did not have access to this information, no evidence was presented to prove that backwash effects for S. took place as a result of the actions of S.U., the court instances made a correct conclusion about the insignificance of the offence in actions of S.U., gave him an oral reprimand and discontinued the proceedings.” (Page 2).

“Оценив представленные сторонами доказательства в соответствии с требованиями ст. 26.11 КоАП РФ и сделав вывод о малозначительности совершенного С.Ю. правонарушения, суд учитывал, что его действия формально содержали признаки состава административного правонарушения, но с учетом характера совершенного правонарушения, размера вреда и тяжести наступивших последствий не повлекли существенного нарушения охраняемых общественных интересов.” (Page 2)

“Assessing the evidence submitted by the parties according to requirements of Article 26.11 of CoAO RF and making the conclusion about the insignificance of the offence committed by S.U., the court took into account that his actions formally contained attributes of administrative offence, but given the nature of the committed offence, size and severity of harm did not lead to result essential breach of protected public relations.” (Page 3)