The event that precipitated this case was the sterilization of a person identified as L.H. in Latvia in 1997, which occurred without the patient's permission, when she gave birth and complications arose, necessitating a Caesarean section. L.H. initiated a lawsuit, which resulted in a verdict in 2006, awarding the complainant with compensation from the hospital where the sterilization took place.
However, during the case, the state institution controlling the quality of provided medical services (Quality Control for Medical Care and Fitness for Work, or MADEKKI), by a motion of the hospital's director, started gathering medical records of the complainant. L.H. was informed about the fact by a representative of MADEKKI during a phone call, during which he also stated that the sterilization was her own fault. The case went to a higher court, which agreed (although using different arguments) that MADEKKI did not violate the complainant's right to privacy, even though the collected records contained sensitive data about many years of L.H.'s medical treatment.
In finding against L.H., the higher court took a stand different to that of the lower court. First of all, it reiterated how the right for privacy should be interpreted concerning medical records, including its protection of the factors critical for one to exercise their right to privacy. Guaranteeing confidentiality of medical records should be, according to the court, of highest priority for all countries participating in the Convention on Human Rights: "It's critical, not only to respect patients' privacy, but also to uphold their faith in the medical profession...."
The court then pointed to the fact that records of treatment of L.H. began being gathered seven years after the sterilization occurred, when the claimant was in an unresolved dispute with the hospital. Based on that fact, the court refuted the claim that the records were necessary to evaluate the guilt of the doctor who performed the discussed treatment, and said that neither the hospital nor MADEKKI have the competence to judge on a legal and disciplinary basis the guilt of the doctor. It concluded, however, that MADEKKI was authorized to collect L.H.'s medical records on the grounds that doing so allowed MADEKKI to ensure that proper medical care was provided to the patient, and that, for the purposes of quality medical care, Latvia's data protection law allowed for medical records to be gathered without the patient's authorization.
L.H. appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which found the laws regulating MADEKKI's actions as insufficiently precise and clear, which resulted in the patient's rights being violated. Moreover, the regulations are not sufficient to provide proper protection from arbitrary verdicts of the authorities. For example, the regulations now mean limiting the range of medical records that can be gathered. As a result, the ECtHR stated that Latvian authorities have violated Article 8 of the Convention by not fulfilling a condition provided for by paragraph two of the Article, regulating the limits of the right for privacy by "respective acts." The Court interprets this condition as an assertion that such regulations are to be clear, precise and leaving no space for arbitrary interpretation, which can lead to a shortage in providing people with due process and the protection of their rights.
