Hearing: Lambert and Others v. France (no. 46043/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-01-07 00:00:00)
Case: CASE OF LAMBERT AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2015-06-05 00:00:00
Articles of the Convention concerned: 2, 2-1, 34, 35
Issue: Articles L. 1110-1, 1110-2, 1110-5, 1110-9 and 1110-10, Articles L. 1111-4, 1111-6 and 1111-11 of the Public Health Code ; Act of 22 April 2005 on patients’ rights and end-of-life issues (Leonetti Act) ; Articles R. 4127-37 and R. 4127-38 of the Code of Medical Ethics ; Articles L. 521-2 and R. 625-3 of the Administrative Courts Code
Conclusion: Preliminary objection allowed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) (Conditional)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no 25579/05, § 237, ECHR 2010;A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013;Ada Rossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no 55185/08, 16 December 2008;Burke v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 19807/06, 11 July 2006;Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002 I;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014;Ciechońska v. Poland, no 19776/04, § 65, 14 June 2011;Diamante and Pelliccioni v. Saint Marin, no 32250/08, §§ 146-147, 27 September 2011;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 6339/05, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2007 I;Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no 23458/02, §§ 174-177, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Glass v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 61827/00, 18 March 2003;Haas v.  Switzerland, no 31322/07, § 51, ECHR 2011;İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no 22277/93, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2000 VII;Koch v. Germany, no 497/09, 19 July 2012;L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III;McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no 324;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no 13279/05, § 85, 20 October 2011;Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no 48609/06, 18 June 2013;Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 21727/08, 20 January 2009;Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 45305/99, ECHR 2000 V;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no 2346/02, ECHR 2002 III;Raw and Others v. France, no 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013;S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. the United Kingdom, no 23715/94, decision of the Commission of 20 May 1996;Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no 48335/99, ECHR 2000 XI;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-139, ECHR 2000 VIII;Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011;Tauira and 18 others v. France, no 28204/95, decision of the Commission of 4 December 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 83-A, p. 131;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no 2) [GC], no 32772/02, § 83, ECHR 2009;Vo v. France [GC], no 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004 VIII;Y.F. v. Turkey, no 24209/94, § 31, ECHR 2003 IX 


External sources: Articles 1, 5, 6 and 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (Oviedo Convention);Guide on the decision-making process regarding medical treatment in end-of-life situations drawn up by the Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe;Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)11 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on principles concerning continuing powers of attorney and advance directives for incapacity;Recommendation 1418 (1999) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on protection of the human rights and dignity of the terminally ill and the dying;Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1859 (2012) entitled “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”