Knowledge (XXG)

N. B. vs. Slovakia

Source 📝

70:
N.B. was represented by lawyers from the Slovak feminist group Center for Civil and Human Rights from Košice who represent many other similar cases. After the decision, they called on the Slovak Government to compensate all the victims in pending cases instead of repeatedly "facing an international
62:
Afterwards, in 2004, N.B. sued the Hospital for damages and she also started criminal proceedings against the doctors. In 2008, the District Court in Spišska Nova Ves found sterilization illegal and granted her compensations in amount of app. 1,590 EUR. N.B. found this inadequate in the view of the
58:
Hospital, in Eastern Slovakia, during the caesarean section delivery of her second child v on 25 April 2001. At the time of sterilization, she was only 17 years old, and was a legal minor under the Slovak law. Informed consent of her legal guardians (parents) was legally required. However, the
59:
guardians did not give any consent to sterilization and no record on this was entered in the release report from the hospital. N.B. found about the sterilization only several months later, after her lawyers inspected her medical records in the Hospital.
146: 161: 156: 119: 88: 48: 151: 64: 34: 44: 67:
rejected her complaints, so she brought the case to the European Court. The Court ruled in her favour on 12 June 2012.
166: 131: 22: 95: 39: 113: 37:. The decision came only few months after the release of the judgment in the similar case 140: 26: 132:
Judgement of the European Court of 12 June 2012 on Application no. 29518/10
30: 55: 47:
without informed consent in contravention of Articles 3 and 8 of the
63:
seriousness of the forced intervention. The police and the
147:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving Slovakia
162:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
157:
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
43:. Once again, the Court unanimously found that the 8: 80: 118:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title ( 111: 7: 54:N.B. was forcibly sterilized in the 49:European Convention on Human Rights 14: 65:Constitutional Court of Slovakia 45:Romani woman had been sterilized 71:humiliation and condemnation". 35:European Court of Human Rights 21:is the second case concerning 1: 183: 152:Antiziganism in Slovakia 29:or Gypsy women from 23:forced sterilization 167:Romani in Slovakia 40:V. C. vs. Slovakia 174: 124: 123: 117: 109: 107: 106: 100: 94:. Archived from 93: 85: 18:N.B. vs Slovakia 182: 181: 177: 176: 175: 173: 172: 171: 137: 136: 128: 127: 110: 104: 102: 98: 91: 89:"Archived copy" 87: 86: 82: 77: 33:decided by the 12: 11: 5: 180: 178: 170: 169: 164: 159: 154: 149: 139: 138: 135: 134: 126: 125: 79: 78: 76: 73: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 179: 168: 165: 163: 160: 158: 155: 153: 150: 148: 145: 144: 142: 133: 130: 129: 121: 115: 101:on 2014-03-16 97: 90: 84: 81: 74: 72: 68: 66: 60: 57: 52: 50: 46: 42: 41: 36: 32: 28: 27:Romani people 24: 20: 19: 103:. Retrieved 96:the original 83: 69: 61: 53: 38: 17: 16: 15: 141:Categories 105:2014-11-26 75:References 114:cite web 31:Slovakia 56:Gelnica 99:(PDF) 92:(PDF) 120:link 25:of 143:: 116:}} 112:{{ 51:. 122:) 108:.

Index

forced sterilization
Romani people
Slovakia
European Court of Human Rights
V. C. vs. Slovakia
Romani woman had been sterilized
European Convention on Human Rights
Gelnica
Constitutional Court of Slovakia
"Archived copy"
the original
cite web
link
Judgement of the European Court of 12 June 2012 on Application no. 29518/10
Categories
European Court of Human Rights cases involving Slovakia
Antiziganism in Slovakia
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Romani in Slovakia

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.