Source: https://www.avvocatoflorio.com/avvocato-corte-edu-charlie-gard
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 06:25:08+00:00

Document:
La Sentenza della Corte di Strasburgo sul caso Charlie Gard - Studio Legale Bergamo - Avvocati Bergamo Italia
La Sentenza della Corte di Strasburgo sul caso Charlie Gard
Si riporta la sentenza della Corte E.D.U. nel caso Gard e altri c. Regno Unito (application n. 39793/17), la nota vicenda del piccolo Charlie, il bimbo affetto da una rara e gravissima malattia genetica. Il piccolo doveva essere sottoposto a terapie sperimentali ma, a seguito di intense e prolungate convulsioni cerebrali, il trattamento fu negato in quanto ritenuto inutile e capace soltanto di prolungare le sofferenze del bambino.
Nel febbraio 2017 la struttura sanitaria si rivolgeva quindi alle Autorità inglesi chiedendo di poter interrompere la respirazione artificiale e mantenere soltanto le cure palliative. La richiesta veniva inizialmente accolta dalla High Court e quindi confermata nei successivi gradi di Giudizio.
I genitori, in proprio e nell’interesse del figlio, si sono rivolti alla Corte E.D.U. lamentando la violazione degli artt. 2 (diritto alla vita), 5 (diritto alla libertà ed alla sicurezza), 6 (diritto a un processo equo) e 8 (diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare).
La Corte ha esaminato la vicenda ed osservato che alle autorità nazionali competenti è riconosciuto il più ampio margine di apprezzamento nell'affrontare temi moralmente ed eticamente sensibili ed ha così ribadito la propria intenzione di non sostituirsi ad esse.
La Corte ha valutato il sistema Giuridico inglese in materia giudicandolo è compatibile con la Convenzione, sia sotto il profilo sostanziale che sotto il profilo processuale. Nel merito, la Corte ha poi ritenuto che le decisioni nazionali, assunte nei tre gradi di Giudizio, sono state pronunciate all'esito di una istruttoria adeguatamente approfondita, ben ponderate e minuziosamente motivate.
Pertanto, la Corte ha dichiarato inammissibile la domanda proposta dai genitori del piccolo Charlie.
Testo integrale della Sentenza Gard e altri c. Regno Unito , v. sotto
v. documentazione sul caso, dal sito della Corte EDU ⧉
Editoria Giuridica ⧉ ; v. A. DI STASI, CEDU e ordinamento Italiano. La Giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei diritti dell'Uomo e l'impatto nell'ordinamento interno (2010-2015), 2016, CEDAM ⧉ - S. AMATO, eutanasie, Giappichelli, 2015 ⧉ - G. RAZZANO, Dignità nel morire, eutanasia e cure palliative nella prospettiva costituzionale, Giappichelli, 2015 ⧉
Corte EDU, GARD E ALTRI c. REGNO UNITO [2017]
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix
“112. It goes without saying that in many cases, all other things being equal, the views of the parents will be determinative. Very many cases involving children with these tragic conditions never come to court because a way forward is agreed as a result of mutual respect between the family members and the hospital, but it is well recognised that parents in the appalling position that these and other parents can find themselves may lose their objectivity and be willing to “try anything” even if, when viewed objectively, their preferred option is not in a child’s best interest. As the authorities to which I have already made reference underline again and again, the sole principle is that the best interests of the child must prevail and that must apply even to cases where parents, for the best of motives, hold on to some alternate view.
38. The court also recalled the importance of protecting the applicants’ right to petition this Court and accordingly, granted a further stay until midnight on 10/11July 2017.
72. The object of the rule is to allow the national authorities to address the allegation of a violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before that allegation is submitted to the Court. If the complaint presented before the Court has not been put, either explicitly or in substance, to the national courts when it could have been raised, the national legal order has been denied the opportunity which the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is intended to give it to address the Convention issue. It is not sufficient that the applicant may have exercised another remedy which could have overturned the impugned measure on other grounds not connected with the complaint of a violation of a Convention right. It is the Convention complaint which must have been aired at national level for there to have been exhaustion of “effective remedies”. It would be contrary to the subsidiary character of the Convention machinery if an applicant, ignoring a possible Convention argument, could rely on some other ground before the national authorities for challenging an impugned measure, but then lodge an application before the Court on the basis of the Convention argument (see, among many other authorities, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014 Peacock v the United Kingdom no. 52335/12 (dec.) 5 January 2016 § 32).
123. The Court is also mindful that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities. The Court has already found that the legal framework in place was appropriate and that the authorities have a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The Court therefore considers that the legal framework as a whole has not been shown to be disproportionate. It has also found that the benefit of the direct contact with all persons concerned should be accorded significant weight. In such circumstances, it reiterates that it is not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see Jovanovic v. Sweden, no.10592/12, § 76, 22 October 2015, with further references).
tagPlaceholderTag: giurisprudenza, Avvocato, cedu, eutanasia, charlie gard

References: Sentenza 
 Sentenza 
 sentenza 
 Sentenza 
 § 32
 § 76