ASBL “Jurivie”, ASBL “Pro Vita” and ASBL “Jeunes pour la Vie” v. Belgium

BELGIUM

Title:
ASBL “Jurivie”, ASBL “Pro Vita” and ASBL “Jeunes pour la Vie” v. Belgium

Court:
Constitutional Court of Belgium

Date:
October 29, 2015

CRC Provisions:
Article 2: Non-discrimination
Article 3: Best interests of the child
Article 6: Right to life, survival and development

Other International Provisions:
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2: Right to life, Article 7: No punishment without law, and Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 15: Non-retroactivity principle

Domestic Provisions:
Belgian Constitution (Article 10: Equality, Article 11: Non-discrimination, Article 12: Prohibition of unlawful prosecution, Article 14: No punishment can be administered except by virtue of the law, Article 22: Respect for private and family life, Article 22bis: Each child is entitled to have its moral, physical, mental and sexual integrity respected, and Article 23: Human dignity).

The Belgian Act of 28 February 2014, amending the Belgian Act on Euthanasia of 28 May 2002, legalizing euthanasia for children

Case summary:
Background:
Three pro-life organisations brought a challenge against the 2014 Act amending the 2002 Act on Euthanasia which legalised assisted suicide for all persons without any age restriction. They argued that legalised euthanasia for children is incompatible with the Belgian Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). They requested the Constitutional Court to declare the Act unlawful.

Issue and resolution:
Euthanasia. The Court dismissed the challenge to the legality of the 2014 amendment, holding that the law includes enough safeguards and guidelines to guarantee respect for children’s rights. Therefore allowing children to end their lives with the help of doctors, as long as all safeguards have been respected, is not incompatible with the Belgian Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Court reasoning:
At the outset, the Court acknowledged the importance to protect children from misuse of euthanasia. The Belgian law allows euthanasia only for people with incurable diseases which lead to enormous pain before death. According to the 2014 amendment, in order to approve a child’s request to end their life, doctors have to make sure that the child understand the outcome of their disease and the consequences of euthanasia. This means that young children who are not capable of discernment are excluded and it is not possible to grant a permission for euthanasia to a child without their informed consent. Doctors must also seek an evaluation from other independent practitioners, who are not familiar with the case or the family. Finally, parents or legal guardians’ consent is mandatory. The last safeguard is a Commission of experts, which has to approve the request based on the fulfillment of all of the above criteria. Therefore the Court decided that all these requirements are sufficient to protect the interests of the child.

Excerpts citing CRC and other relevant human rights instruments:
In original French language:

"B.8.1. Le premier moyen dans l’affaire est pris de la violation des articles 10, 11, 22 et 22bis de la Constitution, combinés avec les articles 2 et 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et avec l’article 6 de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant. Les parties requérantes reprochent au législateur de ne pas avoir respecté son obligation de protéger les mineurs.

B.8.2. Le troisième moyen dans l’affaire est pris de la violation des articles 10, 11, 22 et 22bis de la Constitution, combinés avec l’article 2 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et avec l’article 6 de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant. Le moyen concerne la consultation, par le médecin traitant, d’un pédopsychiatre ou d’un psychologue, visée par la loi du 28 mai 2002. Les parties requérantes font valoir que la garantie contenue dans cette disposition est insuffisante pour pouvoir satisfaire aux exigences des dispositions constitutionnelles et internationales mentionnées dans le moyen, en ce que :

• la loi attaquée n’exige aucune formation ou compétence spécifique de la part du pédopsychiatre ou du psychologue;

• la loi attaquée ne précise pas les critères à l’aune desquels le médecin traitant optera pour un pédopsychiatre ou pour un psychologue;

• la loi attaquée ne précise pas les critères à l’aune desquels les praticiens précités seront appelés à apprécier la capacité de discernement du mineur;

• la loi attaquée n’impose au pédopsychiatre ou au psychologue aucune obligation d’indépendance à l’égard du médecin traitant, du patient mineur ou de ses représentants légaux;

• la loi attaquée ne prévoit pas une seconde appréciation de la capacité de discernement lorsque le pédopsychiatre ou le psychologue conclut à la capacité de discernement du mineur; et

• la loi attaquée n’exclut pas que le médecin traitant pratique l’euthanasie lorsque le pédopsychiatre ou le psychologue estime que le mineur non émancipé est dépourvu du discernement requis.

B.10.2. Le droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, tel qu’il est garanti par les dispositions précitées, a pour but essentiel de protéger les personnes contre des ingérences dans leur vie privée et familiale. L’article 22, alinéa 1er, de la Constitution et l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme n’excluent pas une ingérence d’une autorité publique dans le droit au respect de la vie privée mais ils exigent que cette ingérence soit autorisée par une disposition législative suffisamment précise, qu’elle corresponde à un besoin social impérieux et soit proportionnée à l’objectif légitime qu’elle poursuit.

B.17.1. Le droit à la vie et le droit à l’intégrité physique, tels qu’ils sont garantis par les dispositions constitutionnelles et conventionnelles mentionnées dans les moyens, ne s’opposent pas au principe même de la dépénalisation de l’euthanasie. En effet, il ne pourrait découler de ces droits fondamentaux une obligation de vivre, imposée à un individu capable de discernement, quelles que soient les circonstances auxquelles ce lui-ci est confronté.

B.17.2. Le droit à la vie, tel qu’il est garanti à l’article 2 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, impose toutefois au législateur de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour « protéger les personnes vulnérables même contre des agissements par lesquelles elles menacent leur propre vie », ce qui implique notamment qu’il soit tenu de veiller à empêcher « un individu de mettre fin à ses jours si sa décision n’a pas été prise librement et en toute connaissance de cause » (CEDH, 20 janvier 2011, Haas c. Suisse, §54). Une telle obligation positive de prendre des mesures visant à protéger l’intégrité physique de personnes vulnérables, telles que les enfants, découle également de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH, grande chambre, 10 mai 2001, Z e.a. c. Royaume Uni, §73; 4 décembre 2003, M.C. c. Bulgarie, §149), de l’article 6 de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant et de l’article 22bis de la Constitution."

As translated by CRIN:
"B.8.1. The claimants’ first argument is that the 2014 Act - amending the 2002 Act on euthanasia - violates the Constitution, articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The claimants accuse the government of breaching its obligation to protect minors.  

B.8.2. The third argument stipulates that the 2014 Act also violates article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The argument is based on the mandatory consultations that doctors should conduct with other practitioners, including psychologists, child psychiatrists as mentioned in the 2002 Act. The claimants estimate that this provision does not meet the constitutional and international standards, for several reasons:

• the 2014 Act does not require specific skills or trainings from psychologists or child psychiatrists.

• the 2014 Act does not specify on which grounds doctors can choose psychologists and child psychiatrists.   

• the 2014 Act does not state which criteria the practitioners have to look at when assessing the discernment of the child.

• the 2014 Act does not explicitly stipulate that practitioners should be independent from doctors, children and children’s parents or legal guardians.

• the 2014 Act does not provide the opportunity to ask for a second opinion once practitioners have reached a conclusion.

• the 2014 Act does not exclude the possibility for doctors to carry out euthanasia even after the practitioners have concluded that the child had no capacity of discernment.

B.10.2. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the respect for private and family life. However  interferences from public authorities can be allowed if a precise law is issued to tackle a social interest in a proportionate and legitimate way.  

B.17.1. The right to life and dignity, as mentioned in the Constitution and in the international conventions (article 6 CRC and article 2 ECHR), cannot be considered as barriers preventing States from decriminalizing euthanasia. Indeed, these fundamental rights cannot impose an ‘obligation to live’ on individuals capable of forming their own views, regardless of their situation.

B.17.2. The right to life, guaranteed by article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, requires the States to take all necessary measures to “prevent an individual from taking his or her own life if the decision has not been taken freely and with full understanding of what is involved” (ECHR, 20 January 2011, Haas v. Switzerland, para 54). The same obligation to protect vulnerable people, such as children, can be found in article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Grand Chamber, 10 May 2001, Z.e.a. v. United Kingdom, para 73; 4 December 2003, M.C. v. Bulgaria, para 149), in article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and in article 22bis of the Constitution."

CRIN Comments:
CRIN believes this decision is consistent with the CRC. Where it is regarded as a measure of last resort and appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that the child has full understanding of its implications, euthanasia is not a human rights violation. On the contrary, it recognises children’s agency and enhances their right to self-determination.

Citation:
Arrêt n°153/2015

Link to full judgement:
http://www.const-court.be/public/f/2015/2015-153f.pdf

This case summary is provided by the Child Rights International Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.