Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:02:33.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Unborn Child Have a Right to Life? The Insufficient Answer of the European Court of Human Rights in the Judgment Vo v. France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jakob Pichon

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the July 8, 2004 case of Vo v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) dealt with the question of whether the embryo/fetus (“the fetus”) enjoys the protection of the right to life provided by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Below, a pregnant woman lost her fetus due to an error made by the attending doctor, and the Cour de Cassation, the French court of last instance, acquitted the doctor of involuntary homicide on the grounds that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the French Criminal Code. Claiming a violation of her child's right to life within the meaning of the Convention, the woman appealed to the ECtHR. The ECtHR left open the question whether or not a fetus falls within the scope of Article 2; declaring that, even assuming Article 2 was applicable to a fetus, there had been no failure by France to comply with its obligations under Article 2, because the ECtHR deemed the institution of criminal proceedings unnecessary. Rather, it considered the possibility for the applicant to bring an action for damages as sufficient and therefore found that there had been no violation of the fetus's right to life.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , 01 April 2006 , pp. 433 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Eur. Court. H.R., Vo v France, Judgment of 8 July 2004, no. 53924/00, not yet published, available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int [hereinafter Vo].Google Scholar

2 Until the end of the 2nd month of pregnancy the unborn child is referred to as an embryo and after the beginning of the 3rd month as a fetus.Google Scholar

3 Article 2, para. 1, sentence 1 states: “Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.”Google Scholar

4 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, UNTS Vol. 213, 221, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm.Google Scholar

5 Vo (note 1), para. 19.Google Scholar

6 Id., para. 21.Google Scholar

7 Id., para. 22.Google Scholar

8 According to Article 43 of the European Convention a case shall be referred to the Grand Chamber if it “raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or a serious issue of general importance.”Google Scholar

9 See for the following arguments Vo, para. 75-80.Google Scholar

10 Eur. Comm. H.R., Brüggemann and Scheuten v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Decision of 17 March 1978, Decision and Reports Vol. 10, 100, 116, para. 60.Google Scholar

11 Eur. Comm. H.R., H. v. Norway, Decision of 19 May 1992, Decision and Reports Vol. 73, 155, 167, para. 1.Google Scholar

12 Eur. Comm. H.R., X. v. the United Kingdom, Decision of 5 November 1981, Decision and Reports Vol. 19, 244, 249, para. 7.Google Scholar

13 Eur. Comm. H.R., X. v. the United Kingdom, (note 12), 252-53, para. 22.Google Scholar

14 Id., 252, para. 19.Google Scholar

15 Id., 250, para. 12.Google Scholar

16 Eur. Comm. H.R., H. v. Norway, (note 11), 168, para. 1.Google Scholar

17 See e.g. Eur. Court. H.R., Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A, No. 246-A, 1, 28, para. 66; Eur. Court. H.R., Boso v. Italy, Jugdment of 5 September 2002, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-VII, 451, 458, para. 1.Google Scholar

18 Vo (note 1), para. 82.Google Scholar

19 Id., para. 83.Google Scholar

20 Id., para. 84.Google Scholar

21 Id., para. 85.Google Scholar

22 Id., para. 90.Google Scholar

23 Id., para. 94.Google Scholar

24 See the separate opinion of Judge Rozakis, para. 5.Google Scholar

25 See the separate opinion of Judge Costa, para. 12.Google Scholar

26 See the separate opinion of Judge Costa, para. 7.Google Scholar

27 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Ress, para. 1.Google Scholar

28 Id., para. 4.Google Scholar

29 Id., para. 8.Google Scholar

30 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Mularoni, para. 28.Google Scholar

31 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Mularoni, para. 5.Google Scholar

32 American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969, UNTS Vol. 1144, 123, available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Treaties/b-32.htm; its Article 4, para. 1 of the states: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”Google Scholar

33 Cf. for this Judge Costa's opinion, supra note 26.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Vo para. 85.Google Scholar

35 This irrefutable fact is also admitted by those who decline a right to life of the fetus; cf. the separate opinion of Judge Rozakis, supra D.Google Scholar

36 Cf. the dissenting opinion of Judge Mularoni, para. 25.Google Scholar

37 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Ress, supra note 28.Google Scholar

38 Cf. for the mentioned dangers the dissenting opinion of Judge Mularoni, supra note 30.Google Scholar

39 Cf. e.g. the debate in the European Parliament about the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/news/expert/background_page/008-1777-300-10-43-901-20051024BKG01776-27-10-2005-2005–false/default_p001c012_en.htm; see further Vo, para. 32 with a summary of the debates in and Laws of the French National Assembly; see further the results of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies at the European Commission, Vo para. 40; see further summaries of the parliamentary debate in the Deutscher Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) about Law and Ethics of modern medicine and biotechnology, available at: http://www.berlinews.de/archiv/1997.shtml.Google Scholar

40 This was the main fear of the supporters of abortion; cf. the non-governmental organization Family Planning Association, to whom the Court had given the right to intervene as third party, Vo para. 68.Google Scholar

41 See Lagodny, Otto, in: Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, Art. 2, para. 46 (Wolfram Karl ed., 6th delivery 2004).Google Scholar

42 See further for the example of Austria the judgment of the Austrian Constitutional Court of 11 October 1974, 1 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift [EuGRZ] 74 (1975).Google Scholar

43 See the separate opinion of Judge Costa, supra note 25. Cf. for the European states mentioned by Judge Costa e.g. the judgments of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) of 28 May 1993, 20 EuGRZ 229 (1993); and of the Tribunal Constitucional (Spanish Constitutional Court) of 11 April 1983, 12 EuGRZ 611 (1985).Google Scholar

44 See supra note 11.Google Scholar

45 Eur. Comm. H.R., H. v. Norway, (note 11), 168-69, para. 1.Google Scholar

46 See supra note 43.Google Scholar

47 Unites Nations Converence on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, UNTS Vol. 1155, 331, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXIII/treaty1.asp.Google Scholar

48 See e.g. the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, ETS 164, 4 April 1997, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, ETS 168, 12 January 1989, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/168.htm, and the Draft additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, on biomedical research 31 March 2004, available at: http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc04/EDOC10121.htm.Google Scholar

49 Available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/default_en.htm; see Article 3, para. 2, final subparagraph.Google Scholar

50 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Ress, para. 5.Google Scholar

51 See Eur. Court. H.R., Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, Judgement of 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6-A, 31, para. 3.Google Scholar

52 That is cases with two individuals without any state intrusion; see e.g. DeShaney v Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), where local authorities knowing of a father's mistreatment of his child did not intervene in favor of the critically injured child, and Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. ___ (2005), Docket No. 04-278, not yet published, where police officers failed to respond to repeated reports of a woman that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.Google Scholar

53 See Kelly, William, The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution, in: The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights 93, 125 (Eckart Klein ed., 2000). See further, including other areas of positive obligations in the U.S., David P. Currie, Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights, U. Chi. L. Rev. 864, 867-72 (1986).Google Scholar

54 Eur. Court. H.R., Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, (note 51) (in regard to Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life).Google Scholar

55 See e.g. Eur. Court. H.R., Airey v. Ireland, Jugdment of 9 October 1979, Series A, No. 32-A, 17, para. 32 (in regard to Article 8 of the Convention: right to respect for private and family life); Eur. Court. H.R., Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, Judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A, No. 139-A, 12, para. 32 (in regard to Article 11: freedom of assembly and association).Google Scholar

56 See e.g. Eur. Court. H.R., Osman v the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1998, 1998-VIII Reports of Judgments and Decisions 3159, para. 115; Vo, para. 88: Article 2 “requires the State not only to refrain from the “intentional” taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction.”Google Scholar

57 Eur. Court. H.R., Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, (note 55).Google Scholar

58 Cf. the judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht of 28 May 1993 (note 43), 229.Google Scholar

59 See for further arguments with the same objective the dissenting opinion of Judge Ress, supra D.Google Scholar

60 Beginning with Eur. Court. H.R., X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A, No. 91-A, 1.Google Scholar

61 Cf. Georg Ress, The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, in: The Duty to Protect and to Ensure Human Rights 165, 191 (Eckart Klein ed., 2000).Google Scholar

62 Eur. Court. H.R., X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, (note 60), 13, para. 27.Google Scholar

63 Eur. Court. H.R., Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v Germany, Judgment of 22 March 2001, 2001-II Reports of Judgments and Decisions 409, 448, para. 92-94.Google Scholar

64 At the time the limitation period amounted to four years from the date of stabilization of the damage; see the dissenting opinion of Judge Mularoni, para. 14.Google Scholar

65 It was not until April 1992 when the Conseil d'Etat abandoned this position.Google Scholar

66 Cf. the dissenting opinion of Judge Mularoni, supra D.Google Scholar