The complainant complained about the failure to afford her an abortion in circumstances where she had an understandable fear that giving birth would lead to her losing her already poor sight, leading to a further six-months of pregnancy and a caesarean birth, after which her sight did in fact deteriorate significantly (although the causation of this was in issue), causing her immense personal hardship and psychological distress.
Held: The Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under article 3, while accepting it under article 8. There was no adequate system in Poland for deciding whether an abortion was lawful and appropriate, for resolving issues arising in this connection and for enabling the applicant to know her position, thereby exposing her to prolonged uncertainty, severe distress and anguish.
5410/03, [2007] ECHR 212, (2007) 45 EHRR 42
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Ilhan v Turkey ECHR 27-Jun-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (victim); Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 13; . .
Cited by:
Cited – Q, Regina (on The Application of) v Q Constabulary and Another Admn 17-Mar-2011
The claimant renewed his request for an order against the defendant that he should be given a place on a witness protection scheme. He had given evidence for the prosecution in a gangland murder trial. A risk assessment had identified a risk ‘real . .
See Also – Tysiac v Poland ECHR 20-Mar-2007
The applicant alleged that the circumstances of her case had given rise to violations of Article 8 of the Convention. She also relied on Article 3. The applicant further complained under Article 13 that she did not have an effective remedy at her . .
Cited – Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.250443