CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Communicated on 16 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18568/12 Ivana POJATINA against Croatia lodged on 9 February 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Ivana Pojatina, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Ms I. Bojić and Ms I. Radačić, lawyers from Zagreb. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In November 2011 the applicant, who was pregnant at the time and expected to give birth in February 2012, inquired in the Croatian Chamber of Midwives ( Hrvatska Komora Primalja ) about the possibilities of health assistance in home birth. On 1 December 2011 she received a reply indicating that the relevant domestic legislation on health services is unclear and that the matter is not comprehensively regulated. The Croatian Chamber of Midwives thus declined to assist in the applicant’s planed home birth. On 15 February 2012 the applicant gave birth to a child at home. During the birth she was assisted by a midwife. After the birth a paediatrician and a gynaecologist declined to examine her and the baby but eventually she managed to find doctors who examined her and her child. B.     Legislative framework for home births in Croatia The applicant submitted a reply by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare ( Ministarstvo zdravlja i socijalne skrbi ) to the Ombudswoman for Children ( Pravobraniteljica za djecu ) of 11 May 2011 indicating that the question of home birth is not regulated under the relevant domestic law and that any medical assistance in home births would be considered quackery. The applicant further sent a letter of the Ministry of Administration ( Ministarstvo uprave ) of 25 August 2011 to an NGO, “Roda – roditelji u akciji”, indicating that there should be no obstacles for registration of the civil status of a child born at home. On 24 January 2012 the Croatian Chamber of Midwives reported on a case in which a woman had given birth at home after which she and several midwives, suspected of having taken part in the birth, were subjected to a police and disciplinary investigation. In addition, the woman was separated from her child for two days following the disclosure of the fact that she had given birth at home. The applicant also submitted a report by the NGO “Roda – roditelji u akciji” of 20 September 2011 according to which the matter of home births was not regulated in Croatia and the position of medical personnel in home births is unclear. However, many women decide to take the risk and give birth at home. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, that Croatian law dissuaded health professional from assisting her when giving birth at home.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?