76:
Importantly, the decision differs from the previous cases on the matter in the fact that for the first time, the Court also found that the investigation led by the Slovak authorities into the case did not meet the standards of effective investigation guaranteed by the
Convention (procedural aspect of
49:
Hospital in
Eastern Slovakia. Applicants I.G. and M.K were underage minors at the time of the interventions. I.G. was sterilized in 2000, during the delivery of her second child. She was not informed about the intervention at the time and found out about it only three years later, after she examined
53:
Since 2003, all applicants were trying to obtain damages at the Slovak courts, including the
Constitutional Court. They also acted as injured parties in the criminal proceedings, led by the Slovak police and prosecutors from 2003 onwards. Only M.K. received compensations from the District Court in
73:, guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention. Yet again, the European Court found that Slovakia also violated the positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to provide effective protection of reproductive right of Romani women, who are particularly vulnerable group in the population.
50:
her medical records in the
Hospital. M.K. was sterilized in 1999, also during the delivery of her second child. She and her parents found about the intervention only after it was already performed on her. The applicant R.H. was sterilized in 2002 without her informed consent
80:
As part of the violation of
Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the Court ordered the Slovak Government to pay the compensations to the applicants in amount of 28,500 EUR and 27,000 EUR respectively and the reimbursement of their legal costs
68:
The
European Court declared that the sterilization without informed consent of their legal guardians violated the Slovak legislation valid at the time of the interventions. As such, it violated their right to be free from
37:
or Gypsy women. Although the case was the third decision on the practice, it was actually the first case brought to the
European Court by the Slovak feminist organization Center for Civil and Human Rights already in 2004.
105:
65:. In its decision from 13 November 2012, the European Court ruled in favor of I.G. and M.K. Since, R.K., died during the course of the proceedings, the European Court did not consider her complaint.
120:
115:
58:
in amount of EUR 1,593. The
European Court, however, did not find this compensation adequate in the light of the seriousness of the violations.
62:
110:
70:
22:
42:
125:
55:
61:
The case was lodged to the
European Court already in 2004, claiming violations of several provisions of the
90:
30:
99:
34:
91:
Judgement of the
European Court of 13 November 2012 on Application no. 15966/04
46:
26:
41:
The case concerned three Romani women - I.G., R.K. and M.K., who
106:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving Slovakia
121:
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
116:
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
8:
7:
63:European Convention on Human Rights
14:
21:is the third case decided by the
71:inhuman and degrading treatment
23:European Court of Human Rights
1:
18:I.G. and Others vs. Slovakia
142:
111:Antiziganism in Slovakia
43:were forcibly sterilized
31:forced sterilization
126:Romani in Slovakia
133:
56:Spišská Nová Ves
141:
140:
136:
135:
134:
132:
131:
130:
96:
95:
87:
12:
11:
5:
139:
137:
129:
128:
123:
118:
113:
108:
98:
97:
94:
93:
86:
83:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
138:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
103:
101:
92:
89:
88:
84:
82:
78:
74:
72:
66:
64:
59:
57:
51:
48:
44:
39:
36:
35:Romani people
32:
28:
24:
20:
19:
79:
77:Article 3).
75:
67:
60:
52:
40:
17:
16:
15:
29:concerning
100:Categories
85:References
47:Krompachy
27:Slovakia
25:against
45:in
33:of
102::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.