The ruling itself is at [1]. It's a long slog at approx 200 paragraphs of legalese. The conclusions were that Article 8 [2] had been violated, and that as a res

The ruling itself is at [1]. It's a long slog at approx 200 paragraphs of legalese. The conclusions were that Article 8 [2] had been violated, and that as a result some of the applicant’s legal costs should be paid (EUR 1,365) but dismissed the applicant’s claim for substantial damages (loss of earnings and social standing, fiancée terminating their relationship). [1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22JUDGMENTS%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-177082%22] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22languageisocode%22:[%22EN...} [2] Any person shall be enabled: (a) to establish the existence of an automated personal data file, its main purposes, as well as the identity and habitual residence or principal place of business of the controller of the file; (b) to obtain at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense confirmation of whether personal data relating to him are stored in the automated data file as well as communication to him of such data in an intelligible form; ... (d) to have a remedy if a request for confirmation or, as the case may be, communication, rectification or erasure as referred to in paragraphs b and c of this article is not complied with.”