The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) has ruled in the case of an applicant who was unlawfully sterilized in the past and clarified the conditions and procedure of the authorities in the compensation process.
Compensation for unlawful sterilisation
The Act on the Provision of a Lump Sum of Money to Persons Sterilized in Violation of the Law provides that a person who underwent an unlawful sterilization in a health care facility in the Czech Republic between 1 July 1966 and 31 March 2012 is entitled to a lump sum of CZK 300 000. The claim is filed with the Ministry of Health, the application must be submitted within 3 years from the effective date of the Act (i.e. by 1 January 2025).
Illegal sterilisation
Unlawful sterilization has occurred if any pressure, coercion or persuasion has been exerted on the person. Similarly, the fact that the person was not informed in an intelligible manner and to a sufficient extent about his or her medical condition and the purpose, nature, expected benefits, possible consequences and risks of the medical procedure.
Proceedings before the SAC
The plaintiff was unlawfully sterilized the day after giving birth as part of a surgery due to alleged complications. She learned of the sterilization performed informally from a nurse several days later when she inquired about a wound on her abdomen.
However, the Ministry rejected her request because the applicant’s medical records had already been shredded by the hospital. The applicant’s explanation was rejected by the Minister of Health. The applicant then appealed to the Municipal Court in Prague, which annulled the decision and returned the case to the Ministry for further proceedings. The Court criticised the Ministry for proceeding on the premise that without medical documentation the application could not be found to be justified and for not taking any further steps to establish the facts of the case. The Ministry lodged a cassation complaint against the decision of the Municipal Court in Prague.
The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the conclusion of the Municipal Court and dismissed the appeal as unfounded. It is clear from the explanatory memorandum to the Act that the existence of a claim can be proved not only by medical documentation but by any means of proof. According to the Supreme Administrative Court , the applicants cannot be required to identify and document all the documents on their own initiative. In order to achieve the purpose of the law, they must the administrative authorities themselves must also take active steps to establish the state of affairs beyond reasonable doubt.
The primary evidence is certainly medical records, but these may have been shredded (often illegally) due to the significant time lag since the alleged sterilization, or may be of varying quality and testimonial value. Other documents may then not exist at all and the applicants may easily find themselves in need of evidence, while the shredding of medical records is not their fault.
Procedure according to the SAC in case of shredded/non-existent (or untrustworthy) medical records
In the view of the SAC, it is sufficient if the applicant puts forward a prima facie defensible claim, supported by evidence which, taken together, does not admit of any rational explanation of the situation or the behaviour of the individual parties other than that the unlawful sterilisation probably occurred as the applicant claims. If the applicant satisfies this, the Department must presume the prerequisites for an award of monetary relief to be met unless it can itself prove that the facts alleged by the applicant could not have occurred.
If you would like more information in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or guidance for any particular case.