Gauer and Others v. France (communicated case)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 139

March 2011

Gauer and Others v. France (communicated case) - 61521/08

Article 3

Degrading punishment

Inhuman treatment

Sterilisation of young mentally disabled women: communicated

Between 1995 and 1998, five young women with mental disabilities underwent surgery resulting in their sterilisation for the purposes of contraception. They were not informed of the nature of the operations and their consent was not sought. The young women were employed at a local work-based support centre (Centre d’aide pour le travail – CAT) and placed under the responsibility of the Association for Adults and Young People with Disabilities (APAJH). Several years previously, the guardianship judge had placed them under the supervision of the CAT guardianship officer. In September 2000 the Yonne Association for the Protection of People with Disabilities (ADHY) lodged a complaint with the tribunal de grande instance, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. The association’s civil-party application was declared inadmissible. The applicants asked for an ad hoc administrator to be appointed so that they could be designated as civil parties and be represented in the proceedings. That request was refused in June 2003. In July 2004 the guardianship judge appointed the chairman of the Union of Family Associations (UDAF) of the département of Yonne to represent the applicants, who then applied to join the proceedings as civil parties. In April 2006 the court discontinued the proceedings. None of the applicants’ appeals was successful.

The application to the European Court was lodged by five young women with mental disabilities, who were represented by the chairman of the UDAF as ad hoc administrator. The applicants also included the parents of a young woman with disabilities resident at the CAT, members of the ADHY, and the husband of one of the applicants. They complained that the young women who had undergone the surgery had not been represented from the start of the proceedings; they also complained that the proceedings had been unfair and objected that their appeal to the Court of Cassation had been declared inadmissible. The young women submitted that there had been an interference with their physical integrity as a result of the sterilisation which had been carried out without their consent having been sought, and alleged a violation of their right to respect for their private life and their right to found a family. They submitted that they had been subjected to discrimination as a result of their disability.

Communicated under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 12 and under Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3, 8 and 12.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy