Extract
[...] The European Court of Human Rights considers it undesirable and even impossible to know if the unborn child is a person under its own Convention. This question seems crucial and central to answer the case in question. In fact, if the unborn child can be assimilated to a person, it will be subject to the protection of Article 2 of the Convention, failing that, it will not benefit from this protection. Xavier BIOY, a lawyer, however, considers this qualification of person to be a 'false problem' particularly because there is no conflict with the mother (Bioy, Xavier (2005)) The Vo v. [...]
[...] Here, the European Court's response lacks clarity as well as legal courage. It failed to clearly and precisely settle the issue, implying that it could again be seized of the same question or a similar one, particularly in recent events in February 2023, which led a comedian involved in a road accident to cause a pregnant woman to lose the child she was carrying. The decision will be comparable to that made by the plenary assembly of the Court of Cassation on June In any case, the Court leaves a wide margin of appreciation to the member states, which can also imply significant divergences between the different national legislations. [...]
[...] First, it echoes French principles and in particular the principle of legality of offenses and penalties, from which follows a principle of strict interpretation of criminal law and here of Article 221-6 of the French Penal Code (Court of Cassation, full court, June 29, 2001). This decision is therefore consistent with French case law and principles. Furthermore, although there is no criminal remedy in this case, there are other means of recourse, in particular administrative ones. The victim is therefore not deprived of avenues of recourse. Finally, the European Court rightly recognized and affirmed the doctor's involuntary negligence in the case at hand. [...]
[...] The right to life and the Court's article was at the heart of these decisions In addition to the protection of the foetus by their parents and particularly by the mother, the State must and has provided a satisfactory national legal protection under Article 2 of the Convention A satisfactory national legal protection under Article 2 of the Convention The Court held both that"in the absence of a clear legal status of the unborn child, it is not thereby deprived of all protection under French law and that"the requirements related to the preservation of life in the field of public health were not overlooked by the defendant State. Thus, the European Court did not sanction France for any potential breach or non-compliance with its national obligations arising from Article 2 of the Convention. On the contrary, it found that France provides protections for the unborn child and that the medical requirements were not overlooked by it. Therefore, the absence of criminal proceedings to repress the involuntary suppression of a foetus does not constitute a breach of Article 2 of the Convention. [...]
[...] European Court of Human Rights July 2004, Vo v. France - Does the absence of a penal remedy in French law punishing the involuntary destruction of a foetus constitute a breach by France of its obligation, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, to protect the right to life? FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS The concrete content of the principle of respect for human dignity Comment on judgment Vo v. France, European Court of Human Rights July 2004 The judgment VO v. France, delivered on 8 July 2004 by the European Court of Human Rights, falls within the framework of complex debates with high stakes related to the protection of the right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the question of the legal recognition of the status of the embryo and/or the foetus. [...]
