CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8   April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 50181/22 C.P. against Spain lodged on 13   October 2022 communicated on 18   March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s involuntary admission to hospital to give birth pursuant to a judicial order, despite her wish to give birth at home. On 24   April 2019 the Deputy Director of Chirurgical Services of Oviedo requested the duty judge ( juzgado de guardia ) to order the applicant’s admission to hospital for immediate labour induction. He alleged that the applicant had expressed her wish to give birth at home, assisted by a midwife, despite the risk of foetal hypoxia and intrauterine foetal demise due to the prolonged pregnancy (over 42 weeks). On the same day the Oviedo no.   1 investigating judge ordered the admission to hospital of the applicant. Around 3.30   p.m., while the applicant was preparing for giving birth at her home, two police officers, together with an ambulance and medical staff, showed up at her home to execute the judicial order. After initial opposition by a midwife present and the applicant’s husband, the applicant was ultimately transferred and admitted to the Central University Hospital of Asturias at around 5.30   p.m. On 26   April 2019 at 1.40   a.m. the applicant’s baby was born. According to a medical report, C-section was required. On 28   April 2019 the applicant and her baby were discharged from hospital. On 28   April 2019 the investigating judge declared the closure of the case ( archivo de las diligencias ). On 3   May 2019 the applicant lodged a claim requesting the nullity of the judicial order which was dismissed by the investigating judge and by the Oviedo Audiencia Provincial . On 2   June 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s amparo appeal. The applicant alleges that she was unlawfully deprived of her liberty in violation of Article   5 and that her involuntary admission to hospital for labour induction constituted a breach of her right to private life under Article   8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see Aftanache v. Romania , no.   999/19, 26   May 2020)? Did the deprivation of liberty fall within any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of this provision?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see Ternovszky v.   Hungary , no.   67545/09,14   December 2010)?