Avenue de l'Europe
Ternovszky v. Hungary 
|2010
I am just like millions of other mums who wished to decide where and under what conditions I would deliver my two babies.
Anna Ternovszky
Anna Ternovszky wanted to give birth at home rather than in hospital.
But under Hungarian law at the time, any health professional who wanted to help with a home birth ran the risk of being prosecuted. One such prosecution had taken place in Hungary in recent years.
The European court ruled that Hungarian law concerning home births was contradictory. Patients had a right to freely choose whether to accept or reject certain medical treatments, but at the same time health professionals who wanted to help with home births faced the threat of prosecution.
This legal uncertainty left the law open to abuse and limited the choices that soon-to-be mothers like Anna could make when considering a home birth. This breached Anna’s rights.
For the Court, the right to choice in matters of child delivery includes the legal certainty that the choice is lawful and not subject to sanctions, directly or indirectly.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, December 2010
It was a wonderful feeling to learn that we won, and that the court condemned the state of Hungary, forcing my country to create the necessary regulations as soon as possible.
Anna Ternovszky
Anna had given birth at home by the time the European court made its judgment in her case.
In 2011, Hungary passed a new law allowing soon-to-be mothers whose pregnancies are free of medical complications to choose to give birth at home. The law also set out rules on the duties and responsibilities of healthcare professionals who help with home births.
Robert Kaprykowski, who has severe epilepsy, struggled to get the help he needed in prison, even though doctors warned that his life was at risk without specialist care. The European court found that the Polish authorities failed to provide Robert with proper medical care. This amounted to ill-treatment. Following the judgment, Poland made substantial improvements to prison healthcare.
P.B. and J.S. wanted to be jointly covered by J.S.’s civil service health insurance scheme, but P.B.’s request was refused because he was a same-sex partner. The European court ruled that Austria had unfairly discriminated against P.B. and J.S., up to the point when the law on civil service insurance cover was changed to no longer distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
Hungary
Poland
Austria