CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 mai 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sBA727180 { width:35.3pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFFED4F9E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8BAA360 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF069A914 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD1F936F5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE015B501 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s57221CB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }     FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF R.R. v. POLAND   (Application no. 27617/04)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   26 May 2011   FINAL   28/11/2011     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of R.R. v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 March 2011 and on 10 May 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 27617/04) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms R.R. (“the applicant”), on 30   July 2004. The President of the Chamber acceded to the applicant’s request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms Monika Gąsiorowska and Ms   Irmina Kotiuk, lawyers practising in Warsaw, assisted by Ms Christina Zampas. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant alleged that the circumstances of her case had given rise to violations of Article 8 of the Convention. She also invoked Article   3 of the Convention. The applicant further complained under its Article   13 that she did not have an effective remedy at her disposal. 4.     The parties replied in writing to each other’s observations. 5.     In addition, third-party comments were received from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, from the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and from the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme, University of Toronto, Canada, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 §   2 of the Convention and Rule   44 §   2). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1973. 7.     Early in December 2001 the applicant visited Dr S.B. in a hospital in T., in the region covered by the then Małopolska Regional Medical Insurance Fund (replaced later by the countrywide National Health Fund). Having performed an ultrasound scan, Dr S.B. estimated that the applicant was in the 6th or 7th week of pregnancy. 8.     On 2 January 2002, in the 11th week of her pregnancy, the applicant – who was at that time 29 years old, was married and had two children – was registered as a pregnant patient in her local clinic. 9.     On 23 January and 20 February 2002 ultrasound scans were performed, in the 14th and 18th weeks of the applicant’s pregnancy. On the latter date Dr S.B. estimated that it could not be ruled out that the foetus was affected with some malformation and informed the applicant thereof. The applicant told him that she wished to have an abortion if the suspicion proved true. 10.     The Government submitted that in January and February 2002 the applicant had visited Dr S.B. at a private clinic. They argued that such an institution had no right to issue a referral to any public health institution. 11.     The applicant disagreed. She first submitted that at the material time Dr   S.B. worked both at a public hospital in T. – where she had visited him in December 2001 and in February 2002, after the second scan – and at a non-public clinic. She further submitted that the Polish health care system was composed of so-called public health units and non-public health units. The latter, most often being first contact and basic care institutions, had financing contracts with the public National Health Fund (and had had such contracts with its predecessors, the Regional Medical Insurance Funds, at the material time). Medical services available in non-public clinics were partly financed by public funds, constituted by premiums paid by all persons covered by the universal system of health insurance. Doctors working for non-public units had the same rights and duties to provide health care to patients as doctors employed by public units, including a right to refer a patient to a public unit. 12.     Subsequently, the applicant went to a hospital in T. The results of a third ultrasound scan performed in that hospital confirmed the likelihood that the foetus was suffering from some malformation. A genetic examination by way of amniocentesis was recommended by Dr O., in order to confirm or dispel this suspicion. [1] 13.     On 28 February 2002 the applicant had another ultrasound scan in a private clinic in Łódź. She had no referral from Dr S.B. and had therefore to pay for the service herself. Under the applicable laws, her expenditure could not be reimbursed. The results of that scan confirmed the likelihood that the foetus was affected with an unidentified malformation. Genetic tests were recommended again. 14.     She was subsequently received by Professor K.Sz. in Łódź, a specialist in clinical genetics. A genetic test was again recommended. Professor K.Sz. recommended that the applicant should obtain a formal referral from her family doctor, S.B., to have the test carried out in a public hospital in Łódź, which was outside her region covered by the then Universal Medical Insurance Fund. Subsequently, Dr S.B. refused to issue a referral, because in his view the foetus’ condition did not qualify the applicant for an abortion under the provisions of the 1993 Act (see paragraph 66 below). 15.     The Government submitted that no reference to the possibility of the foetus being affected with Edwards syndrome had ever been made. 16.     The applicant disagreed. She submitted that during that visit she was told that the scan gave rise to a suspicion of either Edwards or Turner syndrome. [2] 17.     In the first week of March 2002 the applicant and her husband visited Dr S.B. during his night duty at the hospital in T. They demanded termination of the pregnancy. He refused and indicated that the results of the ultrasound scan could not be treated as a sole ground for diagnosis that the foetus was affected with severe malformation. He proposed having a panel of doctors from the same hospital review his decision. The applicant refused. 18.     On 11 March 2002 the applicant was admitted to a public hospital in T., within her region covered by the National Health Insurance Fund, and requested advice. She was told that a decision on termination could not be taken at that hospital and was referred to a university hospital in Kraków, to a pathological pregnancies ward, in another region of the Fund, for further diagnosis (“ w celu dalszej diagnostyki ”). 19.     During the applicant’s stay in the hospital in T. a hospital lawyer was asked to give an opinion with a view to ensuring that the laws on the availability of legal abortion were respected. The applicant was also told that termination of pregnancy would entail a serious risk to her life and that the two caesarean births which she had previously had constituted the most important risk factor in deciding whether she should have a genetic test at all. 20.     On 14 March 2002, immediately after being discharged from the T. hospital, the applicant travelled 150 kilometres to Kraków. She went to see Dr K.R. at Kraków University Hospital. He criticised her for contemplating a termination. She was also informed that the hospital categorically refused to carry out abortions and that no abortions had ever been performed there for the last 150 years. She was also refused a genetic examination, Dr   K.R. being in the opinion that it was not necessary in her case. She stayed in the hospital for three days and had another ultrasound scan performed, the results of which were inconclusive. Urine and blood tests were also performed. She was discharged on 16 March 2002. The applicant’s discharge record stated that the foetus was affected with developmental abnormalities (“ wady rozwojowe płodu ”). The same was stated in a medical certificate signed by Dr K.R. He recommended genetic testing in order to establish the character of the ailment. 21.     On 21 March 2002 the applicant again contacted Professor K.Sz., who had examined her in February. Another ultrasound scan performed in a private clinic where Professor K.SZ. received patients confirmed the suspicion of malformation. The applicant obtained a referral from the professor to the Mother and Child Hospital in Łódź, but he informed her that he was in fact not competent to issue it. The professor told her that in order to have a genetic test carried out in Łódź, which was outside her region, she needed a referral issued by a doctor practising in her region and, in addition, an approval by a regional insurance fund, together with an undertaking that it would reimburse the costs of the test to the regional fund where the test was to be performed. The professor advised her to report to the Łódź hospital as an emergency patient, claiming that she was about to miscarry, as it was likely that she would then be admitted to that hospital. 22.     Subsequently, on 22 March 2002, the applicant asked Dr K.R. for a referral. The Government submitted that Dr K.R. could not have referred the applicant for a genetic test in Kraków because neither the University Hospital nor any other hospital in Kraków carried out such tests as a routine procedure.     The applicant disagreed. She submitted that Dr K.R. had told her that she would not obtain the referral for testing because if the results were positive she would want to have an abortion. 23.     Afterwards, on the same day, she again unsuccessfully asked Dr S.B. for a referral to the Łódź hospital. 24.     The Government submitted that the applicant had obtained from him a referral to the same Kraków University Hospital where she had already been hospitalised between 11 and 14 March. The applicant disagreed and submitted that no referral had been issued to her. The Court notes this discrepancy in the parties’ submissions and notes that no copy of that referral has been submitted to it. 25.     On 24 March 2002 the applicant went to the Łódź Mother and Child Hospital. 26.     The Government submitted that she had gone to the hospital with a referral issued by Professor K.Sz. 27.     The applicant disagrees. She submits that she had gone to that hospital without a referral, as advised, and had been admitted as an emergency patient. 28.     A genetic test (amniocentesis) was performed there on 26 March 2002, in the 23 rd week of pregnancy, and the applicant was told that she had to wait two weeks for the results. 29.     The Government submitted that the tests were carried out despite the fact that the applicant had not sought from the Małopolska section of the medical insurance fund any approval for financing them. 30.     The applicant was discharged from the Łódź hospital on 28 March 2002. Before the results were available, on 29   March 2002 the applicant, increasingly desperate as by then she was very afraid that the foetus was suffering from severe genetic abnormalities, reported to the T. hospital, where she submitted a written request for an abortion. Dr G.S. told her that he could not take such a decision himself. He had to speak with the consultant. 31.     By a letter of 29 March 2002 the applicant requested the hospital in T. to terminate the pregnancy, referring to the provisions of the 1993 Act. She requested that in case of a negative reply it should be made in writing “as soon as possible”. 32.     On 3 April 2002 the applicant went to that hospital again and was told that the consultant could not see her because he was ill. The visit was rescheduled for 10 April 2002. On the same day she wrote a letter of complaint to the director of the T. hospital, submitting that she had not received adequate treatment and that she felt that the doctors were intentionally postponing all decisions in her case so that she would be unable to obtain an abortion within the time-limit provided for by law. 33.     On 9 April 2002 she again requested doctors at the T. hospital to carry out an abortion. She referred to the results of the genetic tests which she had received on that date. The certificate, established by Professor   K.Sz., confirmed that the karyotype indicated the presence of Turner syndrome. The certificate further read: “A chromosomal aberration and an ultrasound image were established, indicating the presence of congenital defects which can have a serious impact on the child’s normal development. Further handling of the case under the provisions of the 1993 law on termination of pregnancy can be envisaged. A relevant decision should be taken with due regard to the parents’ opinion”. The doctors in the T. hospital refused to carry out an abortion, Dr   G.S. telling her that it was too late by then as the foetus was able at that stage to survive outside the mother’s body. 34.     On 11   April 2002 the applicant again complained in writing to the Director of the T. hospital about the manner in which her case had been handled and about the procrastination on the part of Dr G.S. 35.     In April 2002 the applicant and her husband submitted a number of complaints to various health care system institutions. In a reply from the Ministry of Health, dated 16 May 2002, it was stated that “it was impossible to establish on the basis of the available documents why the genetic tests were postponed until 28 February 2002 when the foetus had already become capable of surviving outside the mother’s body.” 36.     On 29 April 2002 she received a reply from the T. hospital to her complaints of 29 March 2002 and 3 April 2002. The letter contained an account of the facts of the case and quoted provisions of the 1993 Act. No assessment of the lawfulness of the conduct of the medical staff involved was made. 37.     On 11 July 2002 the applicant gave birth to a baby girl affected with Turner syndrome. 38.     On 31 July 2002 the applicant requested the prosecuting authorities to institute criminal proceedings against the persons involved in handling her case. She alleged serious failure on the part of the doctors, acting as public agents, to safeguard her interests protected by law, on account of their failure to perform timely prenatal examinations. As a result, the applicant had been denied information on the foetus’ condition and, consequently, divested of the possibility to decide for herself whether or not she wished to terminate her pregnancy in the conditions provided for by law, and she had been forced to continue it. 39.     On 16 December 2002 the Tarnów District Prosecutor discontinued the investigations, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. The prosecutor relied on an expert opinion prepared by the Białystok Medical University, according to which under the 1993 Act legal abortion was possible only when foetal malformation was severe. It was not possible to assess whether malformations of a foetus were severe enough to justify an abortion until the foetus was able to live on its own outside the mother’s body. It concluded that in the applicant’s case an abortion would have been possible until the 23rd week of pregnancy. The applicant appealed. 40.     On 22 January 2003 the Regional Prosecutor allowed her appeal and ordered that the investigation be re-opened. Additional medical evidence was taken during the investigation. On 5 December 2003 the prosecutor again discontinued the investigation, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. 41.     The applicant appealed, complaining, inter alia , that the prosecuting authorities had failed to address the critical issue of whether, in the circumstances of the case, genetic tests should have been carried out in order to obtain a diagnosis of the foetus’ condition. Instead the investigation had focused on whether or not the applicant had a right to an abortion under the applicable law. 42.     Ultimately, on 2 February 2004, the competent court upheld the decision of the prosecuting authorities. The court held that doctors employed in public hospitals did not have the quality of “public servants”, which in the circumstances of the case was a necessary element for the commission of the criminal offence of breach of duty by a public servant. 43.     On 11 May 2004 the applicant filed a civil lawsuit with the Kraków Regional Court against doctors S.B., G.S. and K.R. and against the Krakow and T. hospitals. She argued that the doctors dealing with her case had unreasonably procrastinated in their decision on her access to genetic tests and had thereby failed to provide her with reliable and timely information about the foetus’ condition. They had also failed to establish the foetus’ condition in time for her to make an informed decision as to whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. As a result of an unjustified delay in obtaining relevant information she had been divested of the possibility of exercising an autonomous choice as to her parenthood. The applicant further argued that the laws in force authorised abortion in specific situations. However, that right had been denied her as a result of difficulties in obtaining timely access to genetic tests and the lengthy delay before she had ultimately obtained such access. The applicant referred to section 4 (a) 1.2 of the 1993 Family Planning (Protection of the Human Foetus and Conditions Permitting Pregnancy Termination) Act and to Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code guaranteeing so ‑ called personal rights. The applicant argued that the circumstances in which the determination of her access to genetic testing had been decided had breached her personal rights and dignity and had deeply humiliated her. No regard had been had to her views and feelings. She also claimed compensation from Dr S.B. for hostile and disparaging statements about her character and conduct which he had made in a press interview about her case. He had disclosed to the public details about her and the foetus’ health covered by medical secret and told the journalist that the applicant and her husband were bad and irresponsible parents. 44.     She claimed just satisfaction in a total amount of PLN   110,000 for breach of her rights as a patient and her personal rights. She also sought a declaration that the three medical establishments were responsible in respect of future costs to be borne by the applicant in connection with her daughter’s treatment. 45.     On 28 October 2004 the Tarnów District Court found S.B. guilty of having disclosed to the public, in an interview he had given to the press, information covered by medical secrecy, including the fact that she had envisaged the termination of the pregnancy. It conditionally discontinued the proceedings against him and fixed a period of probation. 46.     On 19 October 2005 the Kraków Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 10,000 against S.B., finding that in a press interview published in November 2003 he had disclosed information relating to the applicant’s health and private life in connection with her pregnancy. He had also made disrespectful and hurtful comments about the applicant’s conduct and personality. 47.     The court dismissed the remaining claims which she had lodged against doctors G.S. and K.R. and against the hospitals. The courts found that the applicant’s personal and patient’s rights had not been breached by either of these doctors or the hospitals. There had been no procrastination on the doctors’ part in the applicant’s case. Under the World Health Organisation standards termination was permissible only until the 23rd   week of pregnancy, whereas the applicant had reported to the hospitals concerned when she was already in the 23rd week of pregnancy, and on 11   April 2002 she had been in the 24th week. Hence, neither her right to decide about her parenthood nor her rights as a patient had been breached in such a way as to place the defendants at fault. 48.     On 12 December 2005 the applicant appealed. She submitted that the right to health-related information was protected both by Article 24 of the Civil Code, providing for legal protection of personal rights, and by section   19 of the Medical Institutions Act of 1992. In her case doctors S.B., K.R. and G.S. had been of the view that genetic tests were relevant to establishing the foetus’ condition, but had not given her the necessary referral. K.R. had not been able to cite any legal basis for his refusal. G.S. had stated before the court that he had not issued a referral because the applicant had not asked for one. However, it was for a doctor with the required professional knowledge to decide what tests were called for in a given medical situation. The testimony given by the defendants had clearly shown that their conduct in the case had failed to comply with the applicable legal provisions. The doctors had tried to shift the responsibility for the way in which her case had been handled to the applicant, despite the obvious fact that the fundamental responsibility for the proper handling of a medical case lay with them as health professionals. The doctors had also been well aware, as shown by the evidence which they had given, that the applicant had been desperate, in reaction to information that the foetus might be affected with a genetic disorder. 49.     The applicant submitted that the doctors’ conduct had breached the law, in particular section 2 (a) of the 1993 Act in so far as it imposed on the authorities an obligation to ensure unimpeded access to prenatal information and testing, in particular in cases of increased risk or suspicion of a genetic disorder or development problem, or of an incurable life ‑ threatening ailment. The applicant had therefore had such a right, clearly provided for by the applicable law, but the defendants had made it impossible for her to enjoy that right. 50.     On 28 July 2006 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment, endorsing the conclusions of the lower court. 51.     On 11 July 2008 the Supreme Court allowed her cassation appeal, quashed the judgment of the appellate court in its entirety on grounds of substance and ordered that the case be re-examined. The Supreme Court observed that the applicant’s claim was two-pronged: it was based firstly on the failure to refer her for genetic testing and, secondly, on the breach of her right to take an informed decision which resulted from this failure. 52.     As to the first part of her claim, the Supreme Court observed that it was not open to doubt (and had been confirmed by an expert opinion prepared for the purposes of the criminal investigation) that only genetic testing could confirm or dispel suspicions that the foetus was affected with Turner syndrome. The doctors concerned had known of the procedure. They were obliged, under the Medical Institutions Act 1992 ( ustawa o zakładach opieki zdrowotnej ), insofar as it guaranteed patients’ rights, to refer the applicant for genetic testing of their own motion, without her asking for it. Under the same Act, the applicant had a legally protected right to obtain adequate information about the foetus’ health. Had the doctors had conscientious objections to issuing a referral, they should have informed the applicant thereof and referred her to another practitioner who would have referred her for the testing, in accordance with the applicable laws on the medical profession governing the relevant procedure, but they had failed to do so. 53.     The procedures governing the carrying out of genetic tests and their financing by various parts of the then Medical Insurance Fund, applicable at the material time, could not be validly relied on as exempting doctors from issuing a referral, in particular as those procedures were not of a statutory character and could not be plausibly relied on to justify restricting the applicant’s rights as a patient. The obligation to refer the applicant had not, contrary to the courts’ position, ended on the date when legal abortion of a foetus affected with suspected malformation was no longer possible (that is, after the 22nd week), since there were no legal – or medical – grounds on which to automatically link genetic testing with access to legal abortion. Furthermore, at the material time there had been no temporal limitation in law on the carrying out of these tests during pregnancy. It was only in 2004 that an ordinance had been enacted under which genetic testing became available only until the 22 nd week of pregnancy. 54.     The Supreme Court considered that there were therefore good reasons to accept that the doctors dealing with the applicant’s case had breached her personal rights within the meaning of Article 24 of the Civil Code and her patient’s rights guaranteed by the Medical Institutions Act. They had been aware that only genetic testing was capable of determining the foetus’ genetic situation, but had still refused a referral; instead they had sent her for various tests carried out in a hospital setting which were not relevant to such a diagnosis. Moreover, the lower courts had erred in their finding that the applicant had not suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the doctors’ acts. Such damage had been caused by the distress, anxiety and humiliation she had suffered as a result of the manner in which her case had been handled. 55.     As to the second part of the applicant’s claim, the Supreme Court observed that it transpired from the case-law of the Supreme Court (IV   CK   161/05, judgment of 13   October 2005; see paragraph 80 below) that a right to be informed about the foetus’ health and to take informed decisions, in the light of that information, as to whether to continue the pregnancy or not was a personal right within the meaning of the Civil Code. If a child affected with a genetic problem was born as a result of failure to carry out genetic testing, a claim for just satisfaction ( zadośćuczynienie ) arose on the parent’s part. The lower courts had erred in that they had found that there was no adequate causal link between the doctors’ conduct in the applicant’s case and the fact that she had not had access to legal abortion. In this respect the court noted that there had been enough time between the 18th week of the pregnancy, when the suspicions had arisen, and the 22nd, when the time-limit for legal abortion had expired, to carry out genetic testing. When the tests had finally been carried out, the applicant had received the results two weeks later. The tests should therefore have been carried out immediately after the suspicions had arisen, but instead, as a result of procrastination on the part of doctors S.B., G.S. and K.R., they had ultimately been conducted much later. 56.     The court finally held that the amount of PLN   10,000 to be paid by doctor S.B. for denigrating statements he had made in a press interview about the applicant was, in the circumstances of the case, manifestly inadequate. 57.     Hence, the judgment had to be quashed and the case remitted for re ‑ examination in its entirety. 58.     On 30 October 2008 the Kraków Court of Appeal gave a judgment. It stated, referring to the findings of the Supreme Court, that Dr S.B. had failed to refer the applicant for genetic testing as soon as the suspicions as to the foetus’ condition had arisen. He had referred her twice to the Kraków hospital, despite the fact that she had already been at that hospital and that no genetic tests had been carried out at that time. The court held that the applicant’s claim of PLN 20,000 should therefore be allowed. 59.     It further amended the judgment of the first-instance court by increasing to PLN 30,000 the just satisfaction to be paid to the applicant by S.B. for breach of her personal rights in making denigrating public statements about her in the press. 60.     In so far as the action was directed against the T. hospital, the court held that the applicant had not received a proper diagnosis. Dr G.S., working at the T. hospital, had not referred her for genetic testing, but only to Kraków hospital, even though he had been aware that genetic testing was not carried out there. When the applicant had eventually received the results of the tests and, relying on them, had asked G.S. on 29 March 2002 to perform an abortion, a written negative reply had been served on her a month later, namely on 29 April 2002. 61.     In respect of Kraków University Hospital, the court noted that when the applicant had been admitted there on 14 March 2002, she had already had the results of the scan made by Professor K.Sz. in Łódź, which strongly indicated that the foetus was affected with Turner syndrome. In such circumstances, the hospital was under an obligation to carry out tests in order to either confirm or dispel these suspicions, but had failed to do so. Other tests had been carried out instead, concerning a possible inflammatory condition of the foetus, which were irrelevant for the diagnosis of Turner syndrome. The hospital had exposed the applicant to unnecessary stress, while the correct diagnosis had not been made. The defendants had been aware that time was of the essence in the availability of legal abortion, but had failed to accelerate their decision-taking. The hospitals were liable for the negligent acts of their employees in so far as it was their duty to provide the applicant with full information about any genetic disorder of the foetus and how it might affect its development and to do so in time for her to prepare herself for the prospect of giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder. Moreover, the doctors had failed to make any record of their refusals and the grounds for them, an obligation imposed on them by section 39 of the Medical Profession Act. 62.     As Kraków University Hospital had a higher referral level, its liability was more serious as a high level of professional skill could have been reasonably expected of it. The applicant had legitimately expected that she would obtain diagnostic and therapeutic treatment of the requisite quality, whereas her case had in fact been handled with unjustifiable delays. 63.     Having regard to the defendants’ failure to respect the applicant’s rights, the court awarded the applicant PLN 5,000 against T. Hospital of St.   Lazarus and PLN 10,000 against Kraków University Hospital, and dismissed the remainder of her appeal. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The Constitution 64.     Article 38 of the Constitution reads as follows: “The Republic of Poland shall ensure the legal protection of the life of every human being.” 65.     Article 47 of the Constitution reads: “Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life, of his honour and good reputation and to make decisions about his personal life.” B.     The 1993 Family Planning (Protection of the Human Foetus and Conditions Permitting Pregnancy Termination) Act and related statutes 66.     The Family Planning (Protection of the Human Foetus and Conditions Permitting Pregnancy Termination) Act, which is still in force, was passed by Parliament in 1993. Section 1 provided at that time that “every human being shall have an inherent right to life from the moment of conception”. Section 2 (a) of the 1993 Act reads: “The State and local administration shall ensure unimpeded access to prenatal information and testing, in particular in cases of increased risk or suspicion of a genetic disorder or development problem or of an incurable life-threatening ailment.” 67.     Section 4(a) of the 1993 Act reads, in its relevant part: “1.     An abortion can be carried out only by a physician where 1)     pregnancy endangers the mother’s life or health; 2)     prenatal tests or other medical findings indicate a high risk that the foetus will be severely and irreversibly damaged or suffering from an incurable life ‑ threatening ailment; 3)     there are strong grounds for believing that the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act. 2.     In the cases listed above under 2), an abortion can be performed until such time as the foetus is capable of surviving outside the mother’s body; in cases listed under 3) above, until the end of the twelfth week of pregnancy. 3.     In the cases listed under 1) and 2) above the abortion shall be carried out by a physician working in a hospital. ... 5.     Circumstances in which abortion is permitted under paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 1) and 2) above shall be certified by a physician other than the one who is to perform the abortion, unless the pregnancy entails a direct threat to the woman’s life.” 68.     An ordinance issued by the Minister of Health on 22 January 1997, on qualifications of doctors authorised to perform abortions, contains two substantive sections. In its section 1, the requisite qualifications of doctors authorised to perform legal abortions in the conditions specified in the 1993   Act are stipulated. Section   2 of the Ordinance reads: “The circumstances indicating that pregnancy constitutes a threat to the woman’s life or health shall be attested by a consultant specialising in the field of medicine relevant to the woman’s condition.” 69.     On 21 December 2004 the Minister of Health enacted an Ordinance on Certain Medical Services ( rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia w sprawie zakresu świadczeń opieki zdrowotnej ) . An Appendix No. 3 to this Ordinance, entitled Scope of Medical Prenatal Services (...) ( Zakres lekarskich badań prenatalnych (...) ) read, in so far as relevant: “1.     Prenatal tests are to be understood as examinations and diagnostic procedures carried out in respect of pregnant women during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy where there is an increased risk of genetic ailment or malformation, but not later than in the 22 nd week of pregnancy. 2.     Prenatal tests comprise: 1) non-invasive examinations [including ultrasound scans and biochemical tests [marking of serum levels in a pregnant woman’s blood]; 2)   invasive tests [including biopsy of the trophoblast and amniocentesis]. 3.     Prenatal tests are recommended, in particular, where ... 5) results of the ultrasound scan carried out during the pregnancy indicate an increased risk of the foetus being affected with a chromosomal aberration or other malformation.” C.     Relevant provisions of the Criminal Code 70.     Termination of pregnancy in breach of the conditions specified in the 1993 Act is a criminal offence punishable under Article 152 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Anyone who terminates a pregnancy in violation of the Act or assists such a termination may be sentenced to up to three years’ imprisonment. The pregnant woman herself does not incur criminal liability for an abortion performed in contravention of the 1993 Act. 71.     Under Article 157 (a) 1, causing physical damage to an unborn child is a criminal offence punishable by a fine, by limitation of liberty, or by imprisonment of up to two years. D.     Patients’ rights 72.     At the relevant time, patients rights were provided for by the Medical Institutions Act 1992 ( ustawa o zakładach opieki zdrowotnej ). Its section 19 (2) provided that a patient had a right to obtain information about his or her condition. E.     Rights and obligations of doctors 73.     Under section 39 of the Medical Profession Act ( ustawa o zawodzie lekarza ), a doctor may refuse to carry out a medical service, invoking her or his objections on the ground of conscience. He or she is obliged to inform the patient where the medical service concerned can be obtained and to register the refusal in the patient’s medical records. Doctors employed in health care institutions are also obliged to inform their supervisors of the refusal in writing. 74.     Section 31.1 of the Medical Profession Act 1996 provides that physicians are under an obligation to provide to the patient, or his or her representative, comprehensible information about his or her health, diagnosis, proposed and possible diagnostic and therapeutic methods, foreseeable consequences of a decision to have recourse to them or not, and about possible results of therapy and prognosis. 75.     Section   37 of the 1996 Medical Profession Act provides that in the event of any diagnostic or therapeutic doubts, a doctor may, on his or her own initiative or at a patient’s request and if he or she finds it reasonable in the light of the requirements of medical science, obtain an opinion of a relevant specialist or arrange a consultation with other doctors. F.     Civil liability in tort 76.     Articles   415 et seq. of the Polish Civil Code provide for liability in tort. Under this provision, whoever by his or her fault causes damage to another person, is obliged to redress it. 77.     Pursuant to Article   444 of the Civil Code, in cases of bodily injury or harm to health, a perpetrator shall be liable to cover all pecuniary damage resulting therefrom. 78.     Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, a person whose personal rights have been infringed may seek compensation. That provision, in its relevant part, reads: “The court may grant an adequate sum as pecuniary compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage ( krzywda ) suffered by anyone whose personal rights have been infringed. Alternatively, the person concerned, without prejudice to the right to seek any other relief that may be necessary to remove the consequences of the infringement sustained, may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific social interest. ...” G.     Case-law of the Polish courts 79.     In a judgment of 21   November 2003 (V CK 167/03) the Supreme Court held that unlawful refusal to terminate a pregnancy where it had been caused by rape, that is to say in circumstances provided for by section   4   (a)   1.3 of the 1993   Act, could give rise to a compensation claim for pecuniary damage sustained as a result of such refusal. 80.     In a judgment of 13 October 2005 (IV CJ 161/05) the Supreme Court expressed the view that a refusal of prenatal tests in circumstances where it could be reasonably surmised that a pregnant woman ran a risk of giving birth to a severely and irreversibly damaged child, that is to say in circumstances set out by section 4 (a) 1.2 of that Act, gave rise to a compensation claim. H.     Relevant non-Convention materia