issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 229 (2011)

08.11.2011

Sterilisation of 20-year old Roma woman in a public hospital

without her informed consent violated her human rights

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case V.C. v. Slovakia (application no. 18968/07),

which is not final¹, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there

had been:

A violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the

European Convention on Human Rights; and,

A violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the

Convention.

The case concerned the allegation of a Slovak woman of Roma ethnic origin that she had

been the victim of forced sterilisation. This is the Court’s first judgment dealing with

sterilisation.

Principal facts

The applicant, V.C., is a Slovakian national of Roma ethnic origin. She was born in 1980

and lives in Jarovnice (Slovakia).

On 23 August 2000 she was sterilised at the Hospital and Health Care Centre in Prešov

(eastern Slovakia) – under the management of the Ministry of Health – during the

delivery of her second child via Caesarean section. The sterilisation entailed tubal

ligation, which consists of severing and sealing the Fallopian tubes in order to prevent

fertilisation.

The applicant alleged that, in the last stages of labour, she was asked whether she

wanted to have more children and told that, if she did have any more, either she or the

baby would die. She submits that, in pain and scared, she signed the sterilisation

consent form but that, at the time, she did not understand what sterilisation meant, the

nature and consequences of the procedure, and in particular its irreversibility. She was

not informed of any alternative methods. Her signature next to the typed words “Patient

requests sterilisation” is shaky and her maiden name split into two words. She also

claims that her Roma ethnicity – clearly stated in her medical record – played a decisive

role in her sterilisation.

Prešov hospital’s management state that the applicant’s sterilisation was carried out on

medical grounds – the risk of rupture of the uterus – and that she had given her

authorisation after having being warned by doctors of the risks of a third pregnancy.

In January 2003 the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the Centre for Civil and Human

Rights published a report “Body and Soul: Forced and Coercive Sterilisation and Other

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month

period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the

Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further

examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral

request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for

supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:

www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Assaults on Roma Reproductive Freedom in Slovakia” (“the Body and Soul Report”). A

number of proceedings ensued: a general criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful

sterilisation of various Roma women, which was ultimately discontinued on the ground

that no offence had been committed; and, civil and constitutional proceedings brought

by the applicant in which she alleged that the staff at Prešov hospital had misled her into

being sterilised and in which she requested an apology and compensation. The civil

complaint was ultimately dismissed on appeal by the Prešov Regional Court in May 2006,

the courts finding that the sterilisation, a medical necessity, had been carried out in

accordance with domestic legislation (the 1972 Sterilisation Regulation) in force and with

the applicant’s consent. The Constitutional complaint was also subsequently dismissed.

The applicant referred to a number of publications pointing to a history of forced

sterilisation of Roma women which originated under the communist regime in

Czechoslovakia in the early 1970s and which were allegedly designed to control the

Roma population. In particular, she submitted that, according to one study, 60% of

sterilisations carried out from 1986 to 1987 in the Prešov district had been on Roma

women.

The Government submitted that health care in Slovakia was provided to all women

equally and that, according to the conclusions of a group of government-appointed

experts in a report issued in May 2003, all cases of sterilisations had been based on

medical grounds. Indeed, the sterilisation rate of women in Slovakia (0.1% of women of

reproductive age) was low in comparison to other European countries (where the rate

was between 20 to 40%). Some shortcomings had, however, been found in domestic law

and practice, with the experts noting that, in certain cases, patients were not on an

equal footing with medical staff and their rights and responsibilities in matters of health

care were limited. Special measures were recommended such as training medical staff

on cultural differences as well as the setting up of a network of trained health care

assistants who would operate in Roma settlements.

The applicant’s sterilisation has had serious medical and psychological after-effects.

Notably in 2007/2008 she showed all the signs of being pregnant but was not (known as

an “hysterical pregnancy”). Treated since 2008 by a psychiatrist, she continues to suffer

from being sterilised. She has been ostracised by the Roma community. Now divorced

from her husband, she cites her infertility as one of the reasons for their separation.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicant complained that she had been sterilised without her full and informed

consent and that the authorities’ ensuing investigation into her sterilisation had not been

thorough, fair or effective. She further alleged that her ethnic origin had played a

decisive role in her sterilisation and should be seen in the context of the widespread

practice – which originated under the communist regime – of sterilising Roma women as

well as enduringly hostile attitudes towards people of Roma ethnic origin. She relied on

Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private

and family life), 12 (right to found a family), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14

(prohibition of discrimination).

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 April 2007.

Third-party comments were received from the International Federation of Gynaecology

and Obstetrics (FIGO).

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:

Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President,

Lech Garlicki (Poland),

Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),

David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),

Ján Šikuta (Slovakia),

Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),

Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), Judges,

and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)

Ill-treatment

The Court noted that sterilisation amounted to a major interference with a person’s

reproductive health status and, involving manifold aspects of personal integrity (physical

and mental well-being as well as emotional, spiritual and family life), required informed

consent when the patient was an adult of sound mind. Moreover, informed consent as a

prerequisite to sterilisation is laid down in a number of international documents, notably

the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, as ratified by

Slovakia in December 1999 and in force in the country at the time of the applicant’s

sterilisation.

However, from the documents submitted, the applicant – a mentally competent adult

patient – had apparently not been fully informed about the status of her health, the

proposed sterilisation and/or its alternatives. Instead, she had been asked to sign a

typed record while she had still been in labour. Furthermore, she had been prompted to

sign the document after being told by medical staff that if she had one more child, either

she or the baby would die. The intervention had not therefore been an imminent medical

necessity as any threat to her health was considered likely in the event of a future

pregnancy. Indeed, sterilisation is not generally considered as life-saving surgery. The

Court considered that the way in which the hospital staff had acted had been

paternalistic, as she had not in practice had any other choice but to agree to the

procedure, without having had time to reflect on its implications or to discuss it with her

husband.

The applicant’s sterilisation, as well as the way in which she had been requested to

agree to it, must therefore have made her feel fear, anguish and inferiority. The

suffering that entailed had had long-lasting and serious repercussions on her physical

and psychological state of health as well as on her relationship with both her husband

and the Roma community. Although there was no proof that the medical staff had

intended to ill-treat the applicant, they had nevertheless acted with gross disregard to

her right to autonomy and choice as a patient. The applicant’s sterilisation had therefore

been in violation of Article 3.

Investigation into the ill-treatment

The Court noted that the applicant had had an opportunity to have the actions of the

hospital staff examined by the domestic authorities via civil and constitutional

proceedings. The courts dealt with her civil case within two years and one month and

with her constitutional case within 13 months, a period of time which was not open to

particular criticism. She had not sought redress by requesting a criminal investigation

into her case although that possibility was open to her. There had therefore been no

violation of Article 3 as concerned the applicant’s allegation that the investigation into

her sterilisation had been inadequate.

Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)

Given its earlier finding of a violation of Article 3, the Court did not consider it necessary

to examine separately under Article 8 whether the applicant’s sterilisation had breached

her right to respect for her private and family life.

It nevertheless found that Slovakia had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8 to

respect private and family life in that it did not ensure that particular attention was paid

to the reproductive health of the applicant as a Roma.

Both the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights and the European

Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) had identified serious shortcomings

in the legislation and practice relating to sterilisations in general in Slovakia and had

stated that the Roma community, severely disadvantaged in most areas of life, were

more likely to be affected by those shortcomings. Equally, the Slovak government-

appointed experts – in their report of May 2003 – had identified shortcomings in health

care and in compliance with regulations on sterilisation and had made specific

recommendations about training of medical staff regarding Roma.

As concerned the applicant in particular, the Court found that simply referring to her

ethnic origin in her medical record without more information indicated a certain mindset

on the part of the medical staff as to the manner in which the health of the applicant, as

a Roma, should be managed.

New legislation – the Health Care Act 2004 – has been introduced to eliminate such

shortcomings with prerequisities for sterilisation being spelled out (ie a written request

and consent, as well as prior information about alternative methods of contraception,

planned parenthood and the medical consequences) and the procedure only being

allowed 30 days after informed consent. Those developments, although to be welcomed,

did not affect the applicant as they had occurred after her sterilisation.

There had therefore been a violation of Article 8 concerning the lack of legal safeguards

at the time of the applicant’s sterilisation giving special consideration to her reproductive

health as a Roma.

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

The applicant had been able to have her case reviewed by the civil courts at two levels of

jurisdiction and subsequently by the Constitutional Court. In addition, she could have but

did not bring criminal proceedings. Lastly, Article 13 could not be interpreted as

requiring a general remedy against a domestic law, to the extent that – as alleged by

the applicant – the lack of appropriate safeguards in domestic law had been at the origin

of her sterilisation and the subsequent dismissal of her claim. There had therefore been

no violation of Article 13.

Article 12 (right to found a family)

Given the Court’s finding that the applicant’s sterilisation had had serious repercussions

on her private and family life, the Court found that there was no need to examine

whether the facts of the case also gave rise to a breach of her right to marry and to

found a family. It therefore held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine

separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 12.

Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)

The Court held, by six votes to one, that there was no need to examine separately the

applicant’s complaint under Article 14. The information available was not sufficient to

prove that the doctors had acted in bad faith when sterilising the applicant, that their

behaviour had been intentionally racially motivated or, indeed, that her sterilisation was

part of a more general organised policy. The Court further noted that international

bodies and domestic experts had pointed to serious shortcomings in the legislation and

practice relating to sterilisations which were particularly liable to affect members of the

Roma community and that, in that connection, it had found that Slovakia had not

complied with its positive obligation under Article 8 to sufficiently protect the applicant.

Article 41 (just satisfaction)

The Court held that Slovakia was to pay the applicant 31,000 euros (EUR) in respect of

non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,000 for costs and expenses.

Separate opinion

Judge Mijović expressed a dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.

The judgment is available only in English.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on

www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s

RSS feeds.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)

Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of

Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European

Convention on Human Rights.