This article summarizes the course of administrative proceedings conducted under Act No. 297/2021 Coll., which resulted in the rejection of the applicant's claim for a one-time monetary amount for sterilization allegedly performed in the 1970s in violation of the law. The case is based on the applicant's testimony, available medical documentation, and witness statements. The entire process was carried out in cooperation with the organization Romodrom, o.p.s., which legally represented the applicant.
1. Submission of the application and alleged circumstances of sterilization
The applicant submitted an application in 2024 for compensation for sterilization allegedly performed in 1977 during a cesarean section. In the application, she described being in significant pain and severe psychological distress before the procedure. According to her testimony, the doctor informed her that a surgical procedure was necessary due to the baby's condition. Believing she was signing a document related to the birth itself, she signed the presented paper. The applicant states that at that moment, she could not assess the document's content or evaluate its consequences.
After giving birth, the applicant was informed by her gynecologist during a follow-up examination that her fallopian tubes had been ligated, and she could not have more children.
The applicant points out that she comes from a large family, as does her husband, and they planned to have more children. She herself states that the inability to conceive further children represented significant psychological harm to her.
2. Ministry's challenges and evidence supplementation
After submitting the application, the Ministry of Health requested the applicant to supplement it – particularly with the exact date of the procedure and identification of evidence. Through Romodrom, the applicant provided:
- a copy of part of the medical documentation provided to her,
- legal arguments regarding non-compliance with the sterilization directive at the time,
- a witness statement from a close person,
- a sworn statement indicating that immediately upon returning from the hospital, the applicant stated that she had been informed about the ligation of her fallopian tubes.
The witness described the applicant's long-term psychological consequences associated with the knowledge of being unable to have another child. The document in the sworn statement also states that the witness knew the applicant at the time of birth and upon returning from the maternity hospital, the applicant informed her of what the doctors had told her.
3. Medical documentation and attitude of the administrative body
The Ministry requested complete medical documentation from the relevant healthcare provider. From its content, it deduced that sterilization had not been performed. The key arguments were:
• absence of any mention of sterilization in the birth record,
• lack of a record of the procedure in the surgical protocol,
• failure to mention sterilization in the discharge summary,
• detailed description of other surgical complications that, according to the Ministry, would preclude the performance of another procedure.
The Ministry concluded that the applicant may have subjectively believed that she had been sterilized, but the documentation did not support this. For these reasons, on September 19, 2025, it issued a decision to reject the application.
4. Submission of a complaint and fundamental objections
The applicant, through the organization Romodrom, submitted a blanket complaint on October 7, 2025, and subsequently supplemented it. In the appeal, she raises in particular:
4.1. Failure to adhere to the principle of material truth
The appeal states that the Ministry did not establish the facts without reasonable doubt, even though an affidavit, witness testimony, and the applicant's statements were submitted.
4.2. Failure to take witness testimony
The Ministry did not interview the proposed witness, even though it mentioned her in the justification and considered her written statement unreliable.
4.3. Inconsistency of medical documentation with historical practice
The appeal points out that medical records from the 1970s are not always complete or accurate, and the absence of data does not necessarily mean that the procedure did not take place.
4.4. Failure to meet the conditions of informed consent
The appellant argues that:
• she signed the document shortly after giving birth,
• she was not informed about the irreversibility of the procedure,
• the prescribed examination and sterilization committee meeting did not take place,
• the request was not justified and therefore did not meet the requirements of the directive.
4.5. Significance of the Compensation Act
The appeal emphasizes that the law is intended to correct past injustices and should not be applied in a formalistic manner. It expects the Ministry to act in accordance with the legislator's intention – to facilitate compensation for victims whose cases are often decades old.
Conclusion
The case represents a complicated situation typical for management according to the Compensation Act: the applicant's claims and witnesses stand against medical documentation almost fifty years old. The appeal points out several reasons why archival documents may not provide a complete picture and emphasizes the importance of supplementary evidence.
The outcome of the dissolution proceedings will determine whether the ministry must re-evaluate the matter, hear the witness, or supplement the evidence. This case is also an illustration of a broader issue - how to fairly assess events that occurred during pregnancy and childbirth, often without sufficient documentation and under the pressure of the practices of that time.
