CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 15 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5D0944B3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s11042F9 { width:226.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE01501FE { width:2.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3600D38A { width:179.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4667C756 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid } .sB906F14A { width:204.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9AB0EF3C { width:205.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC0E27F52 { width:228.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8AF26270 { width:210.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6E8303AC { width:184.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5C148630 { width:171.61pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     GRAND CHAMBER               CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC   (Applications nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   15 November 2016                 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   András Sajó,   Işıl Karakaş,   Luis López Guerra,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   George Nicolaou,   Kristina Pardalos,   Julia Laffranque,   Helen Keller,   Helena Jäderblom,   Aleš Pejchal,   Valeriu Griţco,   Faris Vehabović,   Dmitry Dedov,   Egidijus Kūris,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Síofra O’Leary, judges, and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2015 and on 15   September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Czech nationals, Ms Šárka Dubská and Ms   Alexandra Krejzová (“the applicants”), on 4 May 2011 and 7 May 2012 respectively. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr D. Záhumenský, a lawyer with the human rights organisation Liga lidských práv, and Mr R. Hořejší, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants alleged that Czech law did not allow health professionals to attend home births, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 4.     On 11 December 2014, following a hearing on admissibility and the merits (Rule 54 § 3), a Chamber of the Fifth Section, composed of Mark   Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ganna   Yudkivska, André Potocki, Paul Lemmens and Aleš Pejchal, judges, and also of Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, delivered a judgment in which it held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   8 of the Convention. The concurring opinions of Judges Villiger and   Yudkivska and the dissenting opinion of Judge Lemmens were annexed to the judgment. On 10 March 2015 the applicants requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. On 1 June 2015 the panel of the Grand Chamber granted that request. 5.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. 6.     The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1) on the merits. The parties replied in writing to each other’s observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Government of the Slovak Republic, the Government of the Republic of Croatia, the Royal College of Midwives (United Kingdom), the International Study Group of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Czech Union of Midwives (UNIPA – Unie porodních asistentek ) and Ms Anna Šabatová, Public Defender of Rights ( Veřejná ochránkyně práv ), all of whom had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). The parties replied to those comments (Rule 44 § 6). 7.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 2 December 2015 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   V.A. Schorm ,   Agent , Mr   O. Hlinomaz , Office of the Government Agent,   Ministry of Justice, Ms   J. Martinková , Office of the Government Agent,   Ministry of Justice, Ms   D. Kopková , Ministry of Health, Mr   J. Feyereisl , Head of the Institute for the Care of   Mother and Child, President of the Czech Gynaecological   and Obstetrical Society, Mr   P. Velebil, Head of the Perinatal Centre   of the Institute for the Care of Mother and Child,   Scientific Secretary of the Czech Gynaecological and   Obstetrical Society,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Ms Dubská Ms   Z. Candigliota,   Counsel , Ms   P. Janssen , Professor, Maternal Child Health,   School of Population and Public Health, University of   British Columbia, Associate Member, Department of   Family Practice, Obstetrics and Gynaecology and School   of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Ms   S. Sládeková,   Advisers; (c)     for the applicant Ms Krejzová Mr   R. Hořejší ,   Counsel , Ms   A. Hořejší , Ms   M. Pavlíková ,   Advisers .   The applicant Ms Krejzová was also present. The Court heard addresses by Ms Candigliota, Mr Hořejší, Mr Schorm and Mr Velebil, and also replies by Ms Janssen to questions put by Judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicants were born in 1985 and 1980 and live in Jilemnice and Prague respectively. A.     Application lodged by Ms Šárka Dubská 9.     The applicant gave birth to her first child in hospital in 2007 without any complications. According to her, during the birth the medical personnel present were urging her to agree to undergo various kinds of medical intervention even though she had expressly stated her wish not to be subjected to any unnecessary medical treatment. She was also forced to give birth in a position she did not find comfortable. She wanted to leave the hospital a few hours after the birth as both she and the baby were healthy, but a doctor ordered her to stay in the hospital. She therefore did not leave until the next day, when she presented a letter from her paediatrician, who confirmed that the applicant would take care of the child. 10.     In 2010 the applicant became pregnant for the second time with an expected delivery date in the middle of May 2011. The pregnancy was free from complications and the medical examinations and tests did not indicate any problems. Since she considered that giving birth in a hospital had been stressful for her, the applicant decided to give birth at home and searched for a midwife to assist at the birth. However, she was unable to find any midwife who was willing to assist her with a home birth. 11.     On 5 April 2011 she wrote to her health-insurance company and to the Liberec Regional Office ( krajský úřad ) asking for help in finding a midwife. 12.     On 7 April 2011 the health-insurance company replied that Czech legislation did not provide for the possibility of a public health-insurance company covering costs arising from home births and that it therefore had no contracts with any health professionals providing such services. Moreover, prevailing expert medical opinion did not approve of home births. 13.     In a letter of 13 April 2011 the Regional Office added that the midwives listed in its register of health professionals were, in any event, only allowed by law to attend births at premises possessing the technical equipment required by Decree no. 221/2010 and not in a private home. 14.     Not having found any health professional to assist her, the applicant gave birth to her son alone at home on 11 May 2011. 15.     On 1 July 2011 she lodged a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ), complaining that she had been denied the possibility of giving birth at home with the assistance of a health professional, in violation of her right to respect for her private life. 16.     On 28 February 2012 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) dismissed the appeal, holding that it would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity for it to decide on the merits of the case, because the applicant had not exhausted all the available remedies, which included an action for protection of personal rights under the Civil Code and an application for judicial review under Article 82 of the Code of Judicial Administrative Procedure. It nevertheless expressed its doubts as to the compliance of Czech legislation with Article 8 of the Convention and asked the relevant parties to initiate a serious and well-informed debate about new legislation. Nine out of the fourteen judges attached separate opinions to the decision, in which they disagreed with the reasoning behind it. Most of them considered that the Constitutional Court should have dismissed the appeal as an actio popularis and should have refrained from expressing any views on the constitutionality of the legislation concerning home births. B.     Application lodged by Ms Alexandra Krejzová 17.     The applicant is the mother of two children who were born at home in 2008 and 2010 with the assistance of a midwife. The midwives attended the births without any authorisation from the State. 18.     According to the applicant, before deciding to give birth at home, she had visited several hospitals, which had all refused her requests to deliver the baby without any medical intervention that was not strictly necessary. They had also refused to agree to her wish for uninterrupted contact with the baby from the moment of birth, as the regular practice was to take the child away from the mother immediately after the birth to be weighed and measured and for further medical observation for a period of two hours. 19.     At the time of lodging the present application, the applicant was pregnant again, with an expected delivery in the middle of May 2012. The pregnancy was free from complications and she again wished to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife. However, she was unable to find a midwife willing to assist because of the risk of a heavy fine if medical services were provided without authorisation. The applicant asked various authorities to help to find a solution. 20.     In a letter of 18 November 2011 the Ministry of Health replied that it did not provide medical services to individual patients and that the applicant should make enquiries to the City of Prague ( Město Praha ), which, acting as a regional office, registered and issued licences to health professionals. 21.     On 29 November 2011 the applicant’s health-insurance company informed her that the attendance of a health professional at a home birth was not covered by public insurance. 22.     On 13 December 2011 the City of Prague informed the applicant that no midwife registered in Prague was authorised to assist with home births. 23.     On 7 May 2012 the applicant gave birth to a child in a maternity hospital in Vrchlabí, 140 km away from Prague. She had chosen that hospital because of its reputation for respecting the wishes of mothers during delivery. Nevertheless, according to her, not all her wishes had been respected. Despite the fact that both she and the child had been healthy and that no complications had occurred during the birth, the applicant had had to stay in the hospital for seventy-two hours. The newborn baby had been separated from her after the birth, and before leaving the maternity hospital the remains of the child’s umbilical cord had been cut off despite her wishes to the contrary. II.     GENERAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO HOME BIRTHS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC A.     Guidelines issued and action taken by the Ministry of Health 24.     In its bulletin no. 2/2007 of February 2007 the Ministry of Health published practice guidelines, which stated: “Conducting a delivery in the Czech Republic is regarded as a health-care service that is provided only in a health-care institution. Each health-care institution must fulfil the statutory requirements ... and the requirements laid down by the relevant secondary legislation.” 25.     On 20 March 2012 the Ministry of Health set up an expert committee on obstetrics with the objective of studying the issue of home births. There were representatives of care recipients, midwives, physicians’ associations, the Ministry of Health, the Government’s Commissioner for Human Rights and public health-insurance companies. The representatives of the physicians’ associations boycotted the meetings, declaring that the current state of affairs was satisfactory and that, in their view, there was no need to change anything. Subsequently, the Minister of Health removed the representatives of care recipients, midwives and the Government’s Commissioner for Human Rights, with the argument that only by changing the committee’s composition in this way it would be possible for it to agree on certain conclusions. 26.     On 18 January 2013 the Governmental Council for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men ( Rada vlády pro rovné příležitosti žen a   mužů ), an advisory body to the Government, recommended the prevention of further discrimination against women in the enjoyment of their right to a free choice of the method and circumstances of giving birth and the place of delivery. It also recommended the prevention of discrimination against midwives by permitting them to practise their profession fully through their inclusion in the public health-insurance system. The Council also referred to the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, to support its position that women should have a choice of where to give birth. 27.     In its bulletin no. 8/2013 published on 9 December 2013, which replaced the previous practice guidelines of 2007, the Ministry of Health described the procedure for providers of health-care services when discharging newborns into their own social environment. It stated that the recommendation of specialists was that a newborn should be discharged from the maternity hospital no sooner than seventy-two hours after birth. The new procedure allows for the discharge of the newborn from the maternity hospital less than seventy-two hours after the birth at the request of the newborn’s legal representative, provided that the latter: “(a) has submitted a written withdrawal of his or her agreement to the provision of medical services to the newborn, or a written statement declaring his or her disagreement with the provision of the medical services, or, alternatively, such agreement or disagreement has been entered in the newborn’s medical documentation ...; (b) has been demonstrably and duly informed about the possible consequences following the discharge of the newborn before seventy-two hours have elapsed since the birth ...; (c) has been duly informed that – in the interests of the subsequent healthy development of the newborn – the Czech specialist medical associations recommend: 1. that a clinical examination be conducted within twenty-four hours of the discharge of the newborn ...; 2. that a blood sample be taken within forty-eight to seventy-two hours following the birth for the purposes of screening for hereditary metabolic malfunctions ...” B.     Data on perinatal mortality 28.     According to estimated data provided by the World Health Organisation for 2004, the Czech Republic was among the countries with the lowest perinatal mortality rate, which is defined as the number of stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life. The rate for the Czech Republic was 0.4%. In other European countries the figures ranged from 0.5% in Sweden and Italy to 4.7% in Azerbaijan. In most European countries the figures were below 1%. According to their 2006 report, perinatal mortality is an important indicator of maternal care and maternal health and nutrition; it also reflects the quality of available obstetric and paediatric care, comparing different countries. The report recommended that, if possible, all foetuses and infants weighing at least 500 g at birth, whether alive or dead, should be included in the statistics. The reported data regarding stillbirths were not adjusted to this effect in the study. 29.     According to the European Perinatal Health Report on the health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010, issued in 2013 within the framework of the activities of the Euro-Peristat Project, the Czech Republic was among the countries with the lowest mortality rate for newborns in the first twenty-seven days of their life. The rate was 0.17%. The data for other countries included in the report, mostly European Union member States, ranged from 0.12% for Iceland to 0.55% for Romania. C.     Criminal proceedings against midwives 30.     It appears that no midwives have been prosecuted in the Czech Republic for attending home births per se . Several have been prosecuted, however, for alleged malpractice in connection with a delivery at home. The applicants referred to the cases of Ms Š. and Ms K., who are both well-known promoters of natural deliveries without any unnecessary medical intervention and who used to regularly conduct home deliveries. 31.     On 27 March 2013 the Prague 6 District Court ( obvodní soud ) found Ms Š. guilty of negligently causing the death of a baby who was stillborn. She was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, and prohibited from practising the occupation of midwife for three years. The culpability of Ms Š. was based on the fact that she had not strongly advised the mother to contact a medical facility when consulted by telephone during a labour that was already ongoing at home. She had thus given flawed advice to the mother-to-be without actually examining her. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the Prague Municipal Court ( městský soud ) on 29   May 2013, although the sentence was changed to fifteen months’ imprisonment, suspended for thirty months, and two years’ prohibition on practising as a midwife. 32.   On 29 April 2014 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) quashed the judgments of the lower courts. Ms Š. was eventually acquitted by the District Court on 23 May 2016. It appears that the proceedings are currently pending before the appellate court. 33.     On 21 September 2011 the Prague 3 District Court found Ms K. guilty of negligently causing bodily harm to a baby whose home birth she had attended and who had stopped breathing during the delivery. The baby died several days later. Ms K. was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, prohibited from practising as a midwife for five years, and ordered to pay 2,700,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (equivalent to 105,000 euros (EUR)) by way of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the insurance company in treating the child until the latter’s death. According to the court, the malpractice on the part of Ms K. consisted in the fact that she had not followed the standard procedures for deliveries as laid down by the Czech Medical Association ( Česká lékařská komora ) and her conduct had thus been non lege artis . The criminal complaint was not lodged by the parents but by a hospital. 34 .     On 24 July 2013 the Constitutional Court quashed all the judgments in the case against Ms K., finding that there had been a violation of her right to a fair trial. It held that the conclusions of the ordinary courts as to Ms   K.’s guilt had been too subjective and were not supported by the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, thereby violating the principle of the presumption of innocence. It stated in particular that the courts had uncritically relied on an expert opinion which they had failed to subject to thorough scrutiny. It held that – on the basis of the expert opinion – the courts had applied very strict liability to the conduct of Ms K. in a situation where it had not been clear how she could have prevented the baby’s death. Moreover, it had been established that she had tried to help the baby and had called an ambulance immediately after establishing that the baby had hypoxia. To foresee every possible complication during delivery and be able to react to it immediately, as was required of Ms K., would ultimately lead de facto to an absolute prohibition of home births. In that context the Constitutional Court noted: “... a modern democratic State founded on the rule of law is based on the protection of individual and inalienable freedoms, the delimitation of which closely relates to human dignity. That freedom, which includes freedom in personal activities, is accompanied by a certain degree of acceptable risk. The right of parents to a free choice of the place and mode of delivery is limited only by the interest in the safe delivery and health of the child; that interest cannot, however, be interpreted as an unambiguous preference for deliveries in hospital.” III.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     People’s Health Care Act 35.     Under section 12a(1) of the People’s Health Care Act (no. 20/1966 – zákon o péči o zdraví lidu ), which remained in force until 31 March 2012, an institution which provided health care had to be equipped with appropriate human, material and technical resources depending on the nature and extent of health care it provided. Under section 12a(2) of the Act, the Ministry of Health was to specify, by means of a decree, the requirements for material, human and technical resources in health-care institutions. 36.     Section 18(1) of the Act specified that outpatient care, which also included the visiting service, was provided by a general practitioner and other specialists in consulting rooms or in associated outpatient institutions. B.     Health Care in Private Health-Care Institutions Act 37.     Section 4(1) of the Health Care in Private Health-Care Institutions Act (no. 160/1992 – zákon o zdravotní péči v nestátních zdravotnických zařízeních ), which was in force until 31 March 2012, required private institutions to be equipped with appropriate human, material and technical resources for the type and extent of health care they provided. 38.     Under section 4(2)(b), the Ministry of Health was empowered to adopt a decree to specify the requirements for technical and material equipment in private health-care institutions. 39.     By virtue of section 5(2)(a), a private institution could provide health care as specified in the decision on registration. 40.     Under section 14, a person breaching the Act could be fined, but the amount of the fine was not specified. C.     Paramedical Professions Act 41.     Under section 6(3) of the Paramedical Professions Act (no. 96/2004 – zákon o nelékařských zdravotnických povoláních ), which entered into force on 1   April 2004, the duties involved in practising the profession of midwife include, inter alia , physiological deliveries and provision of care for newborns. D.     Decree no. 424/2004 of the Ministry of Health 42.     The Decree of the Ministry of Health on Activities of Medical Staff and Other Specialists ( vyhláška, kterou se stanoví činnosti zdravotnických pracovníků а jiných odborných pracovníků ), which entered into force on 20   July 2004 and remained valid until 13 March 2011, set out the duties of health professions and other professionals. Under section 5(1)(f), midwives could carry out certain activities without professional supervision, including physiological deliveries in emergency situations, together with episiotomy if necessary. E.     Decree no. 221/2010 of the Ministry of Health 43.     The Decree of the Ministry of Health on Requirements for Material and Technical Equipment in Health-Care Institutions ( vyhláška o   požadavcích na věcné a technické vybavení zdravotnických zařízení ), which entered into force on 1 September 2010 and remained valid until 31   March 2012, provided for the possibility of midwives performing deliveries but only in specially equipped rooms, measuring at least 15   square metres, containing the following essential items: (a) a birthing bed for a delivery room or other appropriate device for carrying out a physiological delivery; (b) an examination light; (c) a sterile clamp or rubber band for the umbilical cord; (d) sterile scissors; (e) an EFM (electronic foetal monitoring) device; (f) a pulse oximeter; (g) a suction unit; (h) a laryngoscope and instruments to secure the airways; (i) a bed for women after the birth; (j) a suitable space and surface for treating the newborn; (k) scales for weighing the newborn; (l) an instrument to measure the newborn’s length; and (m) a source of medical oxygen. Moreover, a room for care of a woman and her newborn after the birth, measuring at least 8 square metres, and a shower had to be made available. 44.     Such rooms had to be located so as to allow a birth by Caesarean section or an operation to terminate birth to be carried out in a health-care institution providing in-patient care and complying with the requirements set out in the Decree, within fifteen minutes from the discovery of complications. 45.     Moreover, the Decree entitled midwives to set up a “contact workplace”, which had to be equipped with: (a) suitable furniture for the work of a midwife; and (b) a mobile phone. 46.     Midwives were also required to have a visiting bag containing: (a)   a   device for detection of foetal sounds; (b) disposable equipment for examining pregnant women; (c) a sphygmomanometer; (d) a stethoscope; (e) a medical thermometer; and (f) first-aid equipment, including a device for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. 47.     Section 2 of the Decree required health-care institutions existing at the date of the Decree’s entry into force to comply with the requirements for material and technical equipment laid down in the Decree within twelve months from its entry into force. The period of twelve months was extended to twenty-eight months by Decree no. 234/2011, which entered into force on 31 August 2011. F.     Medical Services Act 48.     The Medical Services Act (no. 372/2011 – zákon o zdravotních službách ) entered into force on 1 April 2012. It replaced the People’s Health Care Act (see paragraphs 35-36 above), the Health Care in Private Health ‑ Care Institutions Act (see paragraphs 37-40 above) and the Decree on Requirements for Material and Technical Equipment in Health-Care Institutions (see paragraphs 43-47 above). 49.     In accordance with section 2(2)(a), “health services” means the provision of health care under the Act by health professionals, and also activities carried out by other professionals if these activities are directly connected with the provision of health care. 50.     In accordance with section 2(4)(a)(4) of the Act, “health care” means a set of activities and measures carried out in relation to individuals, for purposes including that of assistance during delivery. 51.     In accordance with section 4(1), a “health-care institution” means premises intended for the provision of health services. 52.     Under section 10 of the Act, the provision of health care in a patient’s own social environment, including home care, may involve only such procedures as are not subject to conditions regarding the technical and material equipment necessary for their performance in health-care institutions. 53.     Under section 11(5), health services can be provided only in the health-care institutions specified in the licence for the provision of health services, except for health services which are provided in a patient’s own social environment. In those cases, providers of health-care services must have their own contact home-care workplace. 54.     Pursuant to section 11(6), a health-care institution must possess technical and material equipment for the provision of health services. The technical and material equipment in health-care institutions must correspond to their specialisation and the type and form of health care they provide. Requirements for the minimum technical and material equipment are to be laid down in an implementing decree. 55.     Section 114 provides that a person providing a health-care service without an appropriate licence can be fined up to CZK 1,000,000 (EUR   37,000). G.     Explanatory Report on the Medical Services Act 56.     The Explanatory Report on the Medical Services Act reads as follows, in so far as relevant: “The ... legislation ... belong[s] to a group of laws and regulations governing the legal conditions for fulfilling everyone’s constitutional right to the protection of health and the constitutional right of citizens to free medical care within the meaning of Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the right to the protection of human dignity, the right to private and family life and physical integrity ... The Act ... defines professional health care ... The State must regulate [such] health care ...; the State is obliged to ensure the availability of health-care services and also their adequate quality and safety. This requirement is satisfied by the condition that professional health care can only be provided by a provider of health-care services ... The ... Act will be one of the pieces of legislation creating the conditions for the performance of the Czech Republic’s obligations in the field of health protection and the provision of health-care services, as deriving from ... the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ... and the European Charter ... The Act also takes into consideration the Convention on the Rights of the Child. ... As regards the provision of health-care services, the patient is an equal partner with the provider and with the medical staff and has the right to give or to refuse to give consent to the health-care services offered, on the basis of information and advice on such services duly given by the provider or a person the provider has designated for that purpose ... Providing patients with health services in their own social environment is often more efficient and appropriate. The patient’s own social environment does not necessarily mean only his or her home but can also mean another alternative environment, such as social care homes or children’s homes. ... The health-care services provided in the patient’s own social environment can be divided into home-care services and outpatient health-care services. Home-care services have a significant effect on planned systemic changes in the health-care system, by... improving patients’ lives and prolonging their stay in their home environment. ... One of the patient’s fundamental rights is the right to free choice with regard to providers of health-care services. ... The Act will provide patients with the right to all information about their condition and about the health-care services to be provided to them. ... As part of care for their own health, individuals are able to make use of other activities based on their own choices; these activities include support for health and other activities in the field of ‘self-treatment’ ... The Act does not prevent these activities; it simply does not define them as being part of professional health care and health-care services, the quality of which is guaranteed by the State. The main reason is that it is not feasible to assess the quality of such care objectively and therefore it is not possible to guarantee its safety or efficiency. Therefore, health-care services can only be provided on the basis of the Medical Services Act.” H.     Decree of the Ministry of Health no. 92/2012 57.     The Decree on Requirements for Minimum Technical and Material Equipment at Health-Care Institutions and Contact Home Care Workplaces ( vyhláška o požadavcích na minimální technické a věcné vybavení zdravotnických zařízení a kontaktních pracovišť domácí péče ) entered into force on 1 April 2012. It replaced the Decree on Requirements for Material and Technical Equipment in Health-Care Institutions (see paragraphs 43-47 above). 58.     The Decree provides, inter alia , for the possibility of midwives performing deliveries in delivery rooms specially equipped for that purpose. The equipment requirements are the same as those specified in Decree no.   221/2010. However, the Decree includes a new requirement: if a Caesarean section or an operation to terminate birth cannot be performed in a medical institution providing inpatient care within fifteen minutes from the discovery of birth complications, it is necessary to set up a delivery room complying with the requirements indicated in the Decree. Moreover, a midwife’s workplace must also be equipped in accordance with the Decree. 59.     As regards “contact workplaces” for the provision of nursing care in relation to gynaecology and birth assistance, the Decree requires such workplaces to contain: (a) suitable furniture for the work of a midwife; (b) a filing cupboard if medical records are not kept exclusively in electronic form; (c) a connection to a public mobile telephone network; (d) a device for detection of foetal sounds; (e) disposable equipment for examining pregnant women; (f) a sphygmomanometer; (g) a stethoscope; (h) a medical thermometer; (i) first-aid equipment, including a device for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation; and (j) a box for transporting biological material. The contact workplace must have a surface area of at least 10 sq. m and sanitary facilities for employees. 60.     Health-care institutions and contact home-care workplaces existing at the date of the entry into force and satisfying the requirements of the previous Decree had to comply with the requirements laid down in the new Decree within a period of between nine and twelve months. I.     Decree of the Ministry of Health no. 99/2012 61.     The Decree on Minimum Personnel Requirements for the Provision of Health-care Services ( vyhláška o požadavcích na minimální personální zabezpečení zdravotních služeb ) entered into force on 1 April 2012. The chapter entitled “Personnel Requirements for Provision of Home Care” indicates that nursing care in gynaecology and birth assistance is to be provided by a midwife qualified to practise her profession independently and a midwife with a special qualification competent to practise her profession independently if activities specified in another legal provision are to be carried out (midwife for intensive care; midwife for intensive care in neonatology; or midwife for community care). IV.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL A.     Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine) 62.     The relevant provisions of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine read as follows: Article 5 - General rule “An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time.” Article 6 - Protection of persons not able to consent “... an intervention may only be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, for his or her direct benefit. Where, according to law, a minor does not have the capacity to consent to an intervention, the intervention may only be carried out with the authorisation of his or her representative or an authority or a person or body provided for by law. ...” Article 8 - Emergency situation “When because of an emergency situation the appropriate consent cannot be obtained, any medically necessary intervention may be carried out immediately for the benefit of the health of the individual concerned.” 63.     Moreover, the explanatory report on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine states in paragraph 34 that “the word ‘intervention’ is understood in its widest sense, as in Article 4 – that is to say, it covers all medical acts, in particular interventions performed for the purpose of preventive care, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation or research”. B.     Convention on the Rights of the Child 64.     The relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child read as follows: Article 3 “1.     In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 2.     States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. ...” Article 5 “States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognised in the present Convention.” Article 6 “1.     States Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life. 2.     States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. ...” Article 18 “1.     States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern. ...” Article 24 “1.     States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. 2.     States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a)     To diminish infant and child mortality; ... (d)     To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers; ...” C.     Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 65.     The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended in its Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5), under the heading “Health” in particular: “36.     While acknowledging the need to ensure maximum safety for mothers and newborns during childbirth, as well as the State party’s low perinatal mortality rate, the Committee takes note of reports of interference with women’s reproductive health choices in hospitals, including the routine application of medical interventions, reportedly often without the woman’s free, prior and informed consent or any medical indication, a rapid increase in the caesarean section rate, separation of newborns from their mothers for up to several hours without health-related reasons, refusal to release the mother and child from hospital before 72 hours after childbirth, and patronizing attitudes of doctors which impede the exercise by mothers of their freedom of choice. It also notes reports about women’s limited options for delivering their babies outside hospitals. 37.     The Committee recommends that the State party consider accelerating the adoption of a law on patients’ rights, including women’s reproductive rights; adopt a protocol of normal birth care ensuring respect for patients’ rights and avoiding unnecessary medical interventions; ensure that all interventions are performed only with the woman’s free, prior and informed consent; monitor the quality of care in maternity hospitals; provide mandatory training for all health professionals on patients’ rights and related ethical standards; continue raising patients’ awareness of their rights, including by disseminating information; and consider taking steps to make midwife-assisted childbirth outside hospitals a safe and affordable option for women.” 66.     In its Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic of 14 March 2016 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/6), the Committee recommended the following: “4.     The Committee welcomes the progress achieved since the consideration in 2010 of the State party’s fifth periodic report (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5) in undertaking legislative reforms, including the adoption of: (a)     The adoption of the Act No. 372/2011 Coll., on health services and the terms and conditions for the providing of such services (The Act on Healthcare Services), as amended by Act No. 167/2012 Coll.; ... ... 30.     The Committee welcomes the low rates of perinatal mortality in the State party. However, it is concerned about continued reports on the conditions for childbirth and obstetric services in the State party unduly curtailing women’s reproductive health choices, including: (a)     Unnecessary separation of newborns from their mothers without medical grounds; (b)     Disproportionate limitations on home childbirths; (c)     Frequent use of episiotomy without medical need and in contravention of the mother’s preference to abstain from them; and (d)     Undue restrictions on the use of midwives in lieu of physicians/gynecologists in situations where such use does not pose a health risk. 31.     The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party accelerate the adoption of a law on patients’ rights, including women’s reproductive rights. In doing so, the State party should: (a)     Adopt clear guidelines for ensuring that the separation of newborns from their mothers is subject to the requirement of medical necessity; (b)     Establish a prenatal care system that allows for the effective assessment of the suitability of home childbirths and the option for it where appropriate; (c)     In light of its recent adoption of Act No. 372/2011 Coll., on health services and the terms and conditions for the providing of such services, ensure its effective implementation in compliance with the Convention, including by: Adopting and enforcing a protocol of normal birth care ensuring respect for patients’ rights and avoiding unnecessary medical interventions; and ensuring that all interventions are performed only with the woman’s free, prior and informed consent; monitoring the quality of care in maternity hospitals; providing mandatory training for all health professionals on patients’ rights and related ethical standards; continue raising patients’ awareness of their rights, including by disseminating information; and (d)     Undertake measures, including legislation, to make midwife-assisted childbirth outside hospitals a safe and affordable option for women.” V.     COMPARATIVE-LAW MATERIAL 67.     From the information available to the Court, it would appear that planned home births are provided for in domestic law and regulated in twenty member States of the Council of Europe (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the United Kingdom). In these countries, the right to a home birth is never absolute and is always dependent on certain medical conditions being satisfied. Moreover, national health insurance covers home birth in only fifteen of these countries. 68.     It would also appear that home births are unregulated or under-regulated in twenty-three member States (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Lithuania, Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine). It would appear that in some of these countries, private home births do take place but in a legal vacuum and without national health cover. Moreover, no legislation has been found which prohibits the assistance of midwives at home births. In a very small number of the member States surveyed, disciplinary or cr