Facts

Sterilization took place at the hospital while the applicant, a woman of Roma descent, gave birth to her
second child. The petitioner claimed that the hospital staff asked her if she wanted any more children
before performing the Cesarean section. The applicant said that she did, and the medical staff allegedly
warned her that her life and the life of her unborn child would be at danger if she became pregnant
again. The petitioner's signature "was in an unsteady hand and the applicant's maiden name... was split
into two words" when she was requested to sign the delivery record expressing her desire for
sterilization. Following the Cesarean section, the applicant had a tubal ligation, which is defined as
"severing and sealing the Fallopian tubes in order to prevent fertilization." The applicant was admitted
to the hospital and placed in a room reserved for women of Roma descent. The applicant experienced
"serious medical and psychological after-effects" and "symptoms of a false pregnancy" following the
procedure. She was also "prevented from using the same bathrooms and toilets as women who were
not of Roma origin." She was also excommunicated from her community and, as a result of her
infertility, she and her husband divorced. The applicant subsequently discovered that "the patient's full
and informed consent" was needed for the tubal ligation, which was not a life-saving treatment.

After a criminal investigation had been initiated, it was ended by the authorities when they concluded
there had been no crime. A civil case was brought, but the district court determined that since in vitro
fertilization was an option, the applicant's condition was not irrevocable. The higher court upheld,
finding that the process had been carried out legally. The Constitutional Court was consulted by the
applicant, but the Court rejected the complaint. The applicant then brought a complaint to the European
Court of Human Rights, claiming that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms ("European Convention") had been violated in relation to articles 3 (freedom
from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 8 (right to private and family life), 12
(right to marry and start a family), 13 (right to remedy), and 14 (freedom from discrimination).

Issue:

Whether or not Article 3, 8, 12, 13, and 14 of European Convention had been violated by Slovakia

Ruling

Articles 3 (freedom from torture and cruel or humiliating treatment or punishment), 8 (right to privacy
and family life), and 14 (freedom from discrimination) of the European Convention were all found to
have been violated by Slovakia. The Court held that because the sterilization "grossly interfered with the
applicant's physical integrity," depriving her of her "reproductive capability," and because the procedure
was not medically necessary enough to forego proper consent, it constituted a substantive violation of
article 3. The Court also emphasized the sterilization's psychological effects. Since the applicant filed a
civil complaint rather than a request for a criminal inquiry, there was no procedural violation of Article 3
for the State's failure to fulfill its duty to conduct an effective investigation.

Regarding article 8, the Court determined that by neglecting to implement the required legislative
measures to guarantee the applicant's enjoyment of her right to private and family life, the State had
not complied with its affirmative obligations under the article. The sterilization amounted to a violation
of the article, according to the Court, because it altered the applicant's status regarding reproductive
health.

The Court decided that examining article 12—the freedom to be married and start a family—separately
was not essential. The Court does not have to consider "whether the facts of the case also give rise to a
breach of the applicant's right to marry and to found a family," even if the sterilization had a significant
negative impact on her personal and family life and was judged to be a violation of article 8.

Because the applicant may get a remedy through the State by filing a claim, the Court determined that
there was no breach of article 13 (which she did). Article 13 simply ensures that the remedy is available
for review before a qualified body that may assess its merits, not that the remedy will be successful.

Regarding article 14, the evidence did not support a conclusion of discrimination alleging that the
doctors behaved racially motivated, in bad faith, or in accordance with a formal policy. The Court
addressed the issues as part of its consideration of Slovakia's responsibilities under Article 8, rather than
making a separate determination regarding whether a breach of Article 14 occurred. On this issue,
Mijovic J dissented from the majority of the Court, ruling that Article 14 ought to have been examined
independently and that the Court ought to have determined that there had been a violation of it.