Estonian agency refuses to share fallen Ukrainian soldier's health data with his children
The Tallinn Administrative Court found that minor children have the right to access the dental records of their father, who has been declared dead, if the records are needed to identify what may be his remains in Ukraine.
A complaint was filed with the Tallinn Administrative Court seeking a court ruling granting access to health data in the Health Information System belonging to the father of minor children — specifically, his dental records.
The children's father went missing while fighting as a volunteer in Ukraine and his remains have yet to be recovered from the combat zone. Last year, the Tallinn Circuit Court issued an order declaring him dead.
The man's children want access to their father's dental records to begin the process of locating his remains and bringing them back to Estonia. They also want to obtain an official death certificate for their father from a Ukrainian court.
The Health and Welfare Information Systems Center (TEHIK) refused to release the dental records of the man who had been declared dead to his minor children, who are represented by their mother.
TEHIK said that access to the dental records required a document proving inheritance rights, namely a certificate of succession.
The children of the man who died in Ukraine are not his heirs, as the family decided to renounce the inheritance for financial reasons. However, the children want their father's dental records so that any remains that may be his can be identified abroad and reburied in Estonia.
The Tallinn Administrative Court granted the family's complaint in full in an August 14 ruling.
The court found that, by virtue of their family relationship, the minor children retain the right to access their deceased father's health data in order to exercise their constitutional right to bury their father.
The ruling states that if the children were not given access to their father's dental records, their right to bury him would exist on paper but they would not actually be able to exercise that right.
The Constitution guarantees the protection of the family and everyone's right to the inviolability of family life. The court found that the state, including government agencies such as TEHIK, has an obligation to act in the best interests of the child, which it failed to do in this case.
The ruling has not yet entered into force.
--
Editor: Marcus Turovski
