003-6209652-8063560

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 328 (2018)   04.10.2018   No breach of woman’s rights in home birth case, but Court calls on Croatia   to regulate legislation more clearly   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Pojatina v. Croatia (application no. 18568/12) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human   Rights.   The case concerned Croatian legislation on home births. The applicant in the case is a mother who   gave birth to her fourth child at home with the help of a midwife from abroad. She alleged in   particular that, although Croatian law allowed home births, women such as her could not make this   choice in practice because they were not able to get professional help.   The Court accepted that at first there might have been some doubt as to whether a system for   assisted home births had been set up in Croatia. It therefore called on the authorities to consolidate   the relevant legislation so that the matter is expressly and clearly regulated.   However, it found that the applicant had clearly been made aware, through the letters from the   Croatian Chamber of Midwives and the Ministry of Health which she had received while she had still   been pregnant with her fourth child, that the domestic law did not allow assisted home births. It   further found that the authorities had struck the right balance between the applicant’s right to   respect for her private life and the State’s interest in protecting the health and safety of mothers   and children. It pointed out in particular that Croatia was not currently required under the   Convention to allow planned home births. There was still a great disparity between the legal systems   of the Contracting States on home births and the Court was sensitive to the fact that the law   developed gradually in this area.   Principal facts   The applicant, Ivana Pojatina, is a Croatian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Zagreb.   She gave birth to her first three children in hospital. In 2011 she became pregnant with her fourth   child and had a due date in February 2012. During her pregnancy she wrote to the Croatian Chamber   of Midwives to enquire whether she could have professional help with a home birth.   The Chamber told her that under Croatian law, health professionals, including midwives, were   unable to assist with home births. In particular, the setting up of private practices by midwives was   not clearly regulated and thus no midwife officially assisted with home births. The Chamber also   cited a statement by the Ministry of Health showing that there was no system for assisting home   births in Croatia.   On 15 February 2012 the applicant gave birth to her fourth child at home, assisted by a midwife   from abroad.   1. 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.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy), Ms Pojatina complained that Croatian law had dissuaded health professionals from   assisting her when giving birth at home. She alleged in particular that, although the law allowed   home births, women such as her could not make this choice in practice because they were not able   to get professional help. She also alleged that, because she had chosen to give birth at home, she   and her child had been denied postnatal care and that it had been difficult to register her child and   obtain a birth certificate.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 February 2012.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece), President,   Kristina Pardalos (San Marino),   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   Ksenija Turković (Croatia),   Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),   Pauliine Koskelo (Finland),   Jovan Ilievski (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   and also Abel Campos, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court found that the Croatian legislation had had a serious impact on Ms Pojatina’s freedom of   choice when giving birth. She had either had to give birth in a hospital, or if she wished to give birth   at home, it had to be without the assistance of a midwife, and therefore with risks to herself and her   baby. In the end, she had given birth at home with the assistance of a midwife from abroad.   The Court held that that interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life had   been “in accordance with the law”. Indeed, although at first there might have been some doubt as   to whether a system for assisted home births was set up in Croatia, she had received letters from   the Croatian Chamber of Midwives and the Ministry of Health while she had still been pregnant with   her fourth child, explaining that the law did not allow assisted home births. However, the Court   called on the Croatian authorities to consolidate the relevant legislation so that the matter was   expressly and clearly regulated.   Moreover, the interference with Ms Pojatina’s right to respect for her private life had not been   disproportionate to the State’s legitimate aim of encouraging hospital births to protect the health   and safety of mothers and children. In particular, while it would be possible for Croatia to allow   planned home births, it was not currently required to so under the Convention. The Court was   sensitive to the fact that the law developed gradually in this area, there still being a great disparity   between the legal systems of the Contracting States. The Court could not disregard remarks that   wishes of women during childbirth did not seem to be fully respected in Croatian maternity wards.   However, it noted that in recent years initiatives had been taken in order to improve the situation.   The Court invited the Croatian authorities to make further progress by keeping the legal provisions   on the issue under constant review in order to reflect medical and scientific developments while   fully respecting women’s rights, in particular by ensuring adequate conditions for both patients and   medical staff in maternity hospitals across the country.   The Court also noted that there were no provisions under Croatian law criminalising home births and   no woman or health professional had ever been prosecuted or punished in the country for a home   birth.   As concerned Ms Pojatina’s complaint that she and her child had been denied postnatal care, the   Court noted that she had never actually reported this to any relevant authority, and, in any case, it   was not in dispute that she and her child had eventually received post-delivery medical care. Nor   could the Court accept her complaint that women giving birth at home experienced difficulties in   registering their children as the law obliged them to submit medical documents to prove their   motherhood. Such a requirement was directed at avoiding abuse in situations where there was no   official information on a child or its biological parents.   Bearing in mind those circumstances, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8.   Separate opinions   Judge Koskelo expressed a concurring opinion, while Judge Wojtyczek expressed a dissenting   opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)   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