CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 février 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 87 June 2006 Tysiąc v. Poland (dec.) - 5410/03 Decision 7.2.2006 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Refusal to terminate pregnancy of a person suffering from severe myopia, which resulted in considerable deterioration of her eyesight: admissible   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Refusal to terminate pregnancy of a person suffering from severe myopia, which resulted in considerable deterioration of her eyesight: admissible   Article 13 Effective remedy Alleged lack of effective domestic remedies concerning access to abortion on therapeutical grounds: admissible   Article 14 Discrimination Authorities’ refusal to assist the complainant, suffering from severe myopia, in reading documents and participating effectively in criminal investigation: admissible   Having suffered for many years from severe myopia (approximately -20 dioptres in each eye), the applicant decided to consult several doctors when she discovered in February 2000 that she was pregnant for the third time, as she was concerned that her pregnancy might have an impact on her health. The three ophthalmologists whom she consulted each concluded that, due to pathological changes in her retina, there would be a serious risk to her eyesight if she carried the pregnancy to term. However, despite the applicant’s requests, they refused to issue a certificate for the pregnancy to be terminated, on the ground that though the retina might detach itself as a result of pregnancy, it was not certain. The applicant also consulted a general practitioner, who issued a certificate stating the risks to which her pregnancy exposed her both on account of the problems in her retina and the consequences of her giving birth again after two previous deliveries by caesarean. By the second month of her pregnancy, the applicant’s myopia had already deteriorated to a level of -24 dioptres in each eye. She was examined by the head of the gynaecology and obstetrics department of a public hospital, Dr R.D., who found that there were no medical grounds for performing a therapeutic abortion. The applicant was therefore unable to have her pregnancy terminated and gave birth to her third child by caesarean in November 2000. Following the delivery, the applicant’s eyesight deteriorated considerably as a result of what was diagnosed as a retinal haemorrhage. She was also informed that, as the changes to her retina were at a very advanced stage, there were no prospects of having them corrected by any surgical intervention. A panel of doctors concluded that her condition required treatment and daily assistance and declared her to be significantly disabled. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against Dr R.D., but the investigation was discontinued by the district prosecutor on the ground that there was no causal link between the doctor’s decision and the deterioration of the applicant’s eyesight and that the haemorrhage in her eyes had in any event been likely. In her appeal to the District Court, the applicant alleged, inter alia , that she had been refused assistance in reading the relevant case-files. The District Court upheld the decision not to prosecute. No disciplinary action either was taken against the doctor, as no professional negligence had been established. The applicant, who is raising her three children alone, is now registered as significantly disabled and on that account receives a monthly pension equivalent to 140 euros. She cannot see objects more than 1.50 metres away and fears that she will eventually become blind. Admissible under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, both taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes