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 disposal. She also submitted, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, that she had been discriminated against in realising her rights guaranteed by Article 8. The application concerned the refusal by the gynaecology and obstetrics department of a public hospital in Warsaw to terminate Ms Tysiac’s third pregnancy which involved a risk to her eyesight. Abortion is prohibited in Poland except for therapeutic purposes.
Nicolas Bratza, P
 ECHR 219, (2007) 22 BHRC 155, (2007) 45 EHRR 42,  1 FCR 666, 5410/03
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 13 14
See Also – Tysiac v Poland ECHR 16-Mar-2007
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 . .
Cited – Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SC 11-Mar-2015
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations
The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Health
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544329