5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in St Petersburg. 6.  On the morning of 23 April 1999 the pregnant applicant, after her contractions had started, was taken by ambulance to the gynaecology ward of the S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy Hospital. 7.  Following her admission, she was handed a booklet issued by the hospital which contained, among other things, a notice warning patients about their possible involvement in the clinical teaching taking place at the hospital. The notice read:
“We ask you to respect the fact that medical treatment in our hospital is combined with teaching for students studying obstetrics and gynaecology. Because of this, all patients are involved in the study process.” 8.  The exact time at which the booklet was handed to her is unclear. 9.  At 9 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor, who established that she was forty weeks pregnant and that there were complications with the pregnancy because she had mild polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). The doctor noted that the applicant’s contractions appeared premature and that she was suffering from fatigue. In view of these symptoms, she was put in a drug-induced sleep, which lasted from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. 10. At 2 p.m. the applicant’s doctor again established that the contractions had been premature and prescribed her anti-contraction medication to suppress premature labour. 11.  Between 2 and 10 p.m. the applicant underwent various medical examinations. The doctors found no other pathologies except that she had been having irregular contractions. 12.  According to the applicant, at around 3 p.m. she was informed that her delivery was scheduled for the next day and that it would be attended by medical students. 13.  At 10 p.m. the applicant was put in a drug-induced sleep. During the night her condition was monitored by doctors. 14.  At 8 a.m. the next day, after the applicant had been woken up, the frequency and intensity of her contractions increased. The doctors found traces of meconium in her amniotic fluid, which indicated there was a risk that the foetus was suffering from hypoxia. The applicant was prescribed medicine to improve uteroplacental hemodynamics (blood flow to the placenta). 15.  At 9 a.m. the doctors carried out a cardiotocography examination and described the state of health of both the applicant and her foetus as satisfactory. They also decided to conduct a vaginal delivery. According to the applicant, in the delivery room she objected to the presence of medical students at the birth. 16.  The birth lasted from 10 to 10.35 a.m. in the presence of doctors and medical students, who had apparently received some information about her state of health and medical treatment. During the labour the doctors performed an episiotomy (incision). The child was diagnosed with light asphyxia. At 1 p.m. the child was moved to a special care baby unit and remained there until 13 May 1999, the date the applicant took her home. 17.  On 10 August 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the hospital, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused as a result of the measures aimed at delaying the birth. 18.  In response, the hospital administration carried out an internal inquiry. The results of were set out in a report dated 14 August 1999, which confirmed that the delivery had been conducted in line with the relevant standards, and that upon the applicant’s admission she had been notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour. The relevant part of the report read as follows:
“... fourth-year medical students were present in the delivery room during [the applicant’s] labour, as [per] their timetable for 24 April 1999. This could not have had any negative impact on the outcome of the birth. Management of the delivery was performed by [the head of the Maternity Department]. On admission [the applicant] was notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour. Obstetricians did not intentionally delay the birth. The treatment was carried out in the best interests of the mother and foetus in accordance with the particular circumstances of the applicant’s delivery...” 19.  On 19 August 1999 the hospital dismissed the applicant’s request, stating that there had not been any mistakes in the management of the birth. 20.  On 27 July 2000 the applicant sued the hospital in the St Petersburg Vyborg District Court ("the District Court"). She sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a public apology for the intentional delay to her labour and the non-authorised presence of third parties during the birth. 21.  On 4 September 2002 the District Court ordered an expert examination of the applicant’s case. Experts were requested to examine whether or not the applicant’s delivery had been intentionally delayed and whether or not her labour had been affected by the presence of the students. 22.  In their report dated 27 September 2002 the experts concluded that:
“[The hospital] provided [the applicant] with medical care without any shortcomings capable of deteriorating the health of mother or child. The medical treatment was adequate and carried out timeously. After [the applicant’s admission] she had been carefully examined by doctors, who had made the correct diagnosis and prepared an adequate plan for the birth. Owing to the prematurity of [the applicant’s] contractions and her general fatigue, the prescription of a drug-induced sleep should be considered an appropriate measure. The subsequent treatment [for] the premature contractions was necessary...
Childbirth is stressful for every woman. The presence of [the hospital’s] medical students, even at the second stage of delivery, when the pregnant woman was bearing down, could not have affected management of the labour. The delivery could only have been adversely affected at the first stage. During the bearing down phase, a pregnant woman is usually focused on her physical activity. The presence of the public could not adversely affect her labour. Medical documents show that it was impossible to delay the delivery at the second stage, the stage of unintentional bearing down. The documents in the [applicant’s] case file contain no evidence to confirm that the birth was intentionally delayed with a view to arranging a study of this case by medical students.” 23.  On 25 November 2003 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. Relying on the above-mentioned expert report, it held that the quality of the applicant’s treatment at the hospital had been adequate. It further noted that the domestic law, in particular, the Health Care Act, in force at the time, did not require the consent of a patient to the presence of medical students in writing. It also established the fact that the applicant had been informed of her involvement in the study process beforehand, as she had received the hospital’s booklet containing an explicit warning about the possible presence of medical students during her treatment. The District Court dismissed her argument that she had objected to the presence of the public during the birth as unsubstantiated by accepting the oral submission of her doctor that no such objection had been made. The court did not verify the doctor’s statements in this respect by questioning other witnesses and did not refer to any other evidence in connection with the issue. It concluded that the hospital doctors had acted lawfully and had not caused her any non‑pecuniary damage. 24.  The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“... The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage ... [She] alleged that the birth of her child had been intentionally delayed to arrange for a public procedure in the presence of medical students. [She] stated that the demonstration of her labour, which had been carried out without her consent, had caused her physical and psychological suffering and violated her rights. She stated that the defendant should pay her RUB 300,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The representatives of [the hospital] objected to the claim. They stated that the [applicant] had been aware of the study process in [the hospital] before she had been admitted there ... They further argued that [she] had received adequate and timely medical treatment ...
[B.], a doctor who assisted [the applicant] during her labour stated while being questioned ... [in] court that the medical care had been provided in line with the expected standards and without delay. The applicant did not make any complaints about the quality of [her] medical care. [B.] also submitted that it was impossible to delay labour. According to her, the presence of students lasted only a few minutes. The students’ curriculum provided that they had to take part in doctors’ rounds and the medical treatment of patients...
In accordance with Article 54 of the Health Care Act, students of secondary and higher medical educational institutions are allowed to assist in the administration of medical treatment in line with the requirements of their curriculum and under the supervision of medical personnel. The relevant rules are to be set forth by the Ministry of Health of Russia. Articles 32 and 33 of the Health Care Act provide that such medical interventions may not be performed without a patient’s consent, which must be confirmed in [writing].
The court finds that the mere presence of [the hospital’s] students in the delivery room cannot be construed as a medical intervention within the meaning of Articles 32 and 33 of the Health Care Act. As can be seen from the case file documents, ambulances do not usually take their patients to [hospital]. [The applicant] was taken to [the hospital] because her husband served in the [army].
According to [the applicant’s] statements, she was aware of her possible involvement in the study process (see the booklet). The case file contains no evidence which could support the allegations that she had objected to the presence of the public during the delivery.
Taking into account the circumstances of this case, the court sees no grounds to find the [hospital’s] doctors guilty of inflicting any non-pecuniary damage or physical or moral suffering on the applicant. Accordingly, [the hospital] is under no obligation to pay any compensation [to her] ...” 25.  On 24 May 2004 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment on appeal.