Introduction
This expert article summarizes the course of administrative proceedings and related procedural steps in the matter of a woman's application (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") for the grant of a one-time monetary amount under Act No. 297/2021 Coll., regulating compensation for persons sterilized in violation of the law. The proceedings took place in the years 2024-2025 and are based on documentation that the applicant gradually submitted through her legal representative - Romodrom, o.p.s. The presented text also reflects a blanket breakdown, supplemented breakdown, original request, witness's affidavit, and responses to the Ministry of Health's challenges.
I. Submission of Application and Initiation of Administrative Proceedings
In 2024, the applicant submitted, through the organization Romodrom, a request for the provision of a one-time monetary amount for sterilization allegedly performed in 1977. In the application, she described the circumstances of the birth of her third child, complications during childbirth, and subsequent claim that she learned about the sterilization only six weeks after childbirth from her gynecologist.
The Ministry of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "ministry") initiated administrative proceedings and issued a challenge to remedy the defects in the application, requesting:
• specific date of the alleged sterilization,
• identification of documents and other evidentiary means,
• information on whether the applicant has ever received any other compensation.
At the same time, it issued a resolution to suspend the proceedings until the defects are rectified.
II. Supplementing the Application by the Applicant
The applicant responded by submitting a document stating:
• date of sterilization,
• that she is submitting available medical documentation,
• detailed description of the legal deficiencies of the procedure then requested, particularly the absence of:
◦ informed consent,
◦ instruction on the irreversibility of the procedure,
◦ activity of the sterilization committee,
◦ expert opinions,
◦ any indication reasons.
The document also stated that the signature on the sterilization request was not made freely - it was signed during the first stage of labor, in extreme stress and painful condition.
III. Obtaining medical documentation by the ministry
Subsequently, the Ministry requested the complete medical documentation of the applicant from the hospital.
From the documentation it emerged:
• the applicant was admitted for delivery,
• the delivery ended in a cesarean section,
• the documentation includes a request for sterilization, signed by the applicant,
• the discharge summary mentions "sterilization attached at the mother's request,"
• however, there is no record in any part of the documentation that the sterilization was actually performed,
• there is no mention in the operation protocol, discharge report, or procedures,
• the documentation indicates a complication - perforation of the bladder, not intervention in the fallopian tubes.
The Ministry stated that the documentation appears complete and standard. There is no indication of any intention to conceal anything.
IV. Witness testimonies and affidavits
The applicant subsequently supplemented the proceedings with:
1. Affidavit of a witness:
A document from 2025 confirms that upon returning from the maternity hospital, the applicant stated that doctors told her she had "tied ovaries," information conveyed to her by a doctor during a postpartum visit, and the witness described a significant psychological impact: the applicant's long-term sadness over the inability to have another child.
2. Testimony of another witness:
A document attached to the breakdown and amendments of the application states that the applicant was informed only after returning home. The doctor was supposed to present her with the document to sign during severe labor pains. The applicant was also convinced that she was signing consent for a procedure necessary to save the child.
3. Applicant's testimony (part of the original application)
• She detailed the course of delivery, recurring pains, and trust in the doctor.
V. Procedure of the Ministry and Rejection Decision
In 2025, the ministry issued a decision rejecting the request.
Reasons for rejection:
1. The first legal condition was not met - the ministry concluded that sterilization had not been proven to have been performed.
2. No record of sterilization was found in:
• the birth certificate,
• the operation protocol,
• the discharge report.
3. There is a signature on the sterilization request, but this fact is not considered as evidence of the procedure being carried out.
4. The statements of the applicant and the witness differ in some details.
5. The medical documentation appears consistent and complete, without signs of manipulation.
6. Therefore, the ministry concluded that the procedure was not performed, and thus the right to compensation cannot be granted.
VI. Blanket Dismissal and Supplementary Dismissal
The applicant (represented by the organization Romodrom) immediately filed a blanket dismissal, stating that detailed arguments would be provided after reviewing the file. The dismissal was filed on time.
A supplementary dismissal was filed, containing extensive legal arguments:
• The Ministry did not establish the facts without reasonable doubt - violation of the principle of material truth.
• It did not interview the witness, yet evaluated her testimony.
• Discrepancies in the testimonies are explained by the applicant's 50-year time gap and different perception of traumatizing events.
• According to medical documentation, there is a written request for sterilization, but all mandatory requirements of the legal procedure are missing.
• The dismissal elaborates on the legal obligations of the communist healthcare system and points out the non-compliance with the sterilization directive from 1971.
• It highlights key case law in the area of illegal sterilizations.
• Questions the ministry's conclusion regarding the completeness of the documentation.
• Refers to the purpose of the law - compensating victims of past state failures.
The dismissal proposes a change in the decision to grant the claim.
Conclusion
The applicant's case represents a typical conflict between the testimony of a person claiming unlawful sterilization and medical documentation from over 45 years ago. The administrative proceedings revealed several key aspects:
• Available medical documentation does not mention the sterilization, which the ministry considered decisive.
• The applicant and witnesses provided credible testimonies that fit into the context of the practices at that time, but were not formally proven.
• The ministry did not utilize all available evidentiary means (e.g., witness testimony), which the applicant objected to in the appeal.
• The entire case highlights the challenges of proving events after 50 years, when many documents could be lost, incomplete, or maintained in different standards.
• The appeal emphasizes that the purpose of the law is to rectify historical mistakes of the state, and that the ministry's actions should particularly consider the principle of a fair process and the sense of legal regulation.
• The outcome of the proceedings will depend on whether the ministry (or minister) acknowledges that despite the absence of an explicit record of sterilization, circumstances indicating unlawful conduct in this case were present, or whether they adhere to a formal assessment of the medical documentation.
