![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
European Court of Human Rights |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> N.B. v. SLOVAKIA - 29518/10 [2012] ECHR 991 (12 June 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/991.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 991 |
[New search] [Contents list] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FORMER SECTION IV
(Application no. 29518/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2012
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of N.B. v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Former Section IV), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Sterilisation of the applicant at the Gelnica Hospital
B. Civil proceedings
C. Criminal complaint
D. Constitutional proceedings
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW, PRACTICE AND RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
48. In addition, the following information is relevant to the present case.
“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.
The opinion of the minor shall be taken into consideration as an increasingly determining factor in proportion to his or her age and degree of maturity.”
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S OBJECTION AS TO THE STATUS OF THE APPLICANT AS A VICTIM
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
1. Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant
(a) The parties’ submissions
(i) The applicant
(ii) The Government
(b) The Court’s assessment
(i) Recapitulation of the relevant principles
(ii) Assessment of the facts of the case
2. Alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONVENTION
“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy
Registrar President
11 The applicant relies upon, in particular:
- Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress towards Accession (2002) issued by the European Commission;
- Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe (2004), published by the European Roma Rights Centre;
- Amnesty International Report 2003;
- Discrimination in the Slovak Judicial System, Roma Rights 1/2002, European Roma Rights Centre;
- Human Rights Practices: Slovak Republic 2001, 2002, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. State Department; and
- Monitoring the EU Accession Process: Minority Protection in Slovakia, 2001, Open Society Institute.