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.

Procedure imposed on a resigned army officer for buying back his remaining years of service was contrary to the Convention

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Chitos v. Greece (application no. 51637/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

A violation of Article 4 § 2 (prohibition of forced labour) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The case concerned an army officer who had been forced to pay a fee to the State in order to resign before the end of his period of service.

This is the first time that the Court has ruled on this matter.

The Court considered that the State’s desire to secure a return on its investment in the training of army officers and military medical officers and to ensure adequate staff numbers justified prohibiting their resignation from the forces for a specified period – to be determined by the State – and to subject them to paying a fee in order to cover the subsistence and training costs which it had incurred during their years of training, in addition to paying remuneration and social benefits. The Court added that military medical officers enjoyed privileges unavailable to civilian medical students during their studies and specialist training.

Nevertheless, by ordering Mr Chitos to pay the sum due in order to buy back his remaining years of service, to the tune of 109,527 euros, without any facility for paying in instalments, even though he had had an appeal pending before the Court of Audit, the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between protecting Mr Chitos’ individual right and the interests of the community at large.

Police failed to protect participants in march against homophobia from violent attacks of counter-demonstrators

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Identoba and Others v. Georgia (application no. 73235/12) the European Court of Human Rights held:

by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) in conjunction with Article 14.

The case concerned a peaceful demonstration in Tbilisi in May 2012 to mark the International Day against Homophobia, which was violently disrupted by counter-demonstrators outnumbering the marchers.

The Court considered in particular that the authorities knew or ought to have known of the risks surrounding the demonstration. They had therefore been under an obligation – but had failed – to provide adequate protection so that it could be held peacefully.

Sentences imposed by the administrative courts in spite of acquittals in criminal proceedings: violations of the Convention

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered its Chamber judgment in the case of Kapetanios and Others v. Greece (application nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) with regard to all three applications, and

a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with regard to Mr Kapetanios’s application.

The case concerned the imposition of administrative fines on individuals accused of contraband who had been acquitted of a criminal offence.

The Court found in particular that the fact of ordering the three applicants to pay administrative fines, even though they had been acquitted by the criminal courts of the same offence in respect of the same set of facts, was contrary both to the right to the presumption of innocence and to the right not to be tried or punished twice (ne bis in idem).

The Court also held, with regard to Mr Kapetanios, that the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts, which lasted twenty-two years, had been excessive, and that at the relevant time there was no effective remedy available under domestic law in this connection.