Lambert and Others v. France kararı, Fransız Danıştayının Bay VC’nin yapay beslenme ve sıvı yüklemesinin geri çekilmesine izin veren 24 Haziran 2014 tarihli kararı ile ilgilidir. AİHM’ye göre, Avrupa Konseyi devletleri, “yaşamı devam ettiren tedavinin geri çekilmesine izin vermek” ile ilgili olarak, bir uzlaşı içinde değildir. Bu nedenle, devletler, belirli bir “takdir marjı”ndan yararlanmalıdır. Fransa özelinde, mevcut başvurudaki gibi, doktorların aldığı kararları yeterince açık biçimde düzenleyen bir yasal çerçeve bulunmaktadır. Dahası, somut olayda, “detaylı tıbbi uzman raporu ve en üst tıbbi ve etik organlardan alınmış genel gözlemler ışığında”, “her türlü bakış açısının ifade edilebildiği ve her açının dikkatlice göz önüne alındığı” “etraflı inceleme” yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, yaşam hakkı, bu nedenlerle ihlal edilmemiştir.
Lambert and Others v. France kararı, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/” adresinden erişilebilirdir.
Lambert and Others v. France kararının basın duyurusu, “http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-5099865-6285870” adresinden erişilebilirdir.
Bu basın duyurusunun özeti, İngilizce haliyle, aşağıdaki gibidir:
Lambert and Others v. France: there would be no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of implementation of the Conseil d’État judgment of 24 June 2014
In today’s Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Lambert and Others v. France (application no. 46043/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there would be no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of implementation of the Conseil d’État judgment of 24 June 2014.
The case concerned the judgment delivered on 24 June 2014 by the Conseil d’État authorising the withdrawal of the artificial nutrition and hydration of Vincent Lambert.
The Court observed that there was no consensus among the Council of Europe member States in favour of permitting the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In that sphere, which concerned the end of life, States must be afforded a margin of appreciation. The Court considered that the provisions of the Act of 22 April 2005, as interpreted by the Conseil d’Etat, constituted a legal framework which was sufficiently clear to regulate with precision the decisions taken by doctors in situations such as that in the present case.
The Court was keenly aware of the importance of the issues raised by the present case, which concerned extremely complex medical, legal and ethical matters. In the circumstances of the case, the Court reiterated that it was primarily for the domestic authorities to verify whether the decision to withdraw treatment was compatible with the domestic legislation and the Convention, and to establish the patient’s wishes in accordance with national law.
The Court’s role consisted in examining the State’s compliance with its positive obligations flowing from Article 2 of the Convention.
The Court found the legislative framework laid down by domestic law, as interpreted by the Conseil d’État, and the decision-making process, which had been conducted in meticulous fashion, to be compatible with the requirements of Article 2.
The Court reached the conclusion that the present case had been the subject of an in-depth examination in the course of which all points of view could be expressed and that all aspects had been carefully considered, in the light of both a detailed expert medical report and general observations from the highest-ranking medical and ethical bodies.