003-3372071-3778873

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 962   14.12.2010   Legal uncertainty prevented mother from giving birth at home   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Ternovszky v. Hungary (application   no. 67545/09), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a   majority, that there had been:   A violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicant, Anna Ternovszky, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1979 and lives   in Budapest. She was pregnant when she lodged her application with the Court.   She intended to give birth at her home, rather than in a hospital or a birth home, but   alleged she had not been able to do so because health professionals were effectively   dissuaded by law2 from assisting her as they risked being convicted. It appeared that at   least one such prosecution had taken place in recent years.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the   applicant alleged that the fact that she had not been able to benefit from adequate   professional assistance for a home birth in view of the relevant Hungarian legislation –   and as opposed to those wishing to give birth in a health institution – had amounted to   discrimination in the enjoyment of her right to respect for her private life.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 December   2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,   Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),   Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),   András Sajó (Hungary),   Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),   Kristina Pardalos (San Marino),   Guido Raimondi (Italy), Judges,   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   section 101(2) of Government Decree no. 218/1999       and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court observed that “private life” incorporated aspects of an individual’s physical   and social identity including the right to respect for both the decisions to become and not   to become a parent, hence the right of choosing the circumstances of becoming a   parent. Although Ms Ternovszky had not been prevented as such from giving birth at   home, there had been an interference with the exercise of the right to respect for her   private life given that legislation arguably dissuaded health professionals from providing   the requisite assistance.   The relevant legislation might reasonably be seen as contradictory. While the Health   Care Act 1997 recognised patients’ right to self-determination, including the right to   reject certain interventions, a Government decree sanctioned health professionals   carrying out activities within their qualifications in a manner incompatible with the law or   their licence.   The Hungarian Government recognised the necessity of regulating this matter; however   no specific decree to that end had been enacted yet. It had moreover not been disputed   that, in at least one case, proceedings had been instituted against a health professional   for home birth assistance.   The Court therefore concluded that the matter of health professionals assisting home   births was surrounded by legal uncertainty prone to arbitrariness. Because of the   absence of specific and comprehensive legislation and of the permanent threat posed to   health professionals inclined to assist them, the applicant was effectively not free to   choose to deliver at home. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 8.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Hungary was   to pay the applicant 1,250 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3