The applicants are Vincent Lambert’s parents, sister and half-brother. Lambert sustained a head injury in a road traffic accident in 2008, as a result of which he is tetraplegic and totally dependent. He is being kept alive by artificial nutrition and hydration dispensed through a tube.

Following the consultation procedure provided for by the "Leonetti Act" on the rights of patients and the ending of life, the doctor treating Lambert decided, on January 11, 2014, to discontinue the patient’s nutrition and hydration from January 13. After proceedings in which the implementation of the doctor’s decision had been suspended, the French Council of State, relying on a medical expert’s report in particular, declared lawful the doctor's decision to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration.

Grand Chamber judgment

In the case Lambert and Others v. France, the Grand Chamber of 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 Council of State's judgment of June 24, 2014, authorizing the withdrawal of the artificial nutrition and hydration of Mr. Lambert.

The court observed that there was no consensus among the Council of Europe member states in favor 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 April 22, 2005, as interpreted by the Council of State, constituted a legal framework that 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 on Human Rights, and to establish the patient’s wishes in accordance with national law.

The court’s role included 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 Council of State, 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, during the course of which all points of view were able to be expressed and 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.