Diritti, Costituzione e CEDU

Rights, Constitution and ECHR

VANNUCCINI S. – «Memento mori» («secundum voluntatem medicorum et sententiam iudicum»). Il caso francese di Vincent Lambert


The case of Vincent Lambert refers to the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration of a French patient in a state characterized as «minimally conscious plus», according to the decision taken by the doctors in charge of him, first confirmed by the Conseil d’État and then by the ECtHR, but in the absence both of advance directives drawn up by the patient and of a person of trust within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Public Health Code, and also with the opposite opinion of his parents and other family members.
This case is not only a patient’s case, but also a question about the death, that of a young man in the incapacity to express its will. This case, and the questionable national and European rulings, reopen a debate never ceased in France, as in Europe as a whole, about the rights of patients and their representatives, the duties of care and assistance, the distinction between treatments and vital treatments, the full protection of human frailty, the unavailability of one’s own bodily life.[…]

PISANI M.- Mandato d’arresto europeo: se vi è rischio di trattamento inumano e degradante l’Autorità Giudiziaria d’esecuzione può decidere di porre fine alla procedura di esecuzione


In its decision on the cases Aranyosi (C-404/15) and Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU), The Court of Justice of the European Union (EUCJ) stated that, although Member States are obliged to respect the mutual recognition principle and cannot introduce non-execution mechanisms which are not provided in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), they are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the requested persons.
The Court of Luxemburg made it clear that fundamental rights, such as the prohibition of torture and ill treatments set out in Article 3 ECHR and in Article 4 of the EU Charter are absolute not derogable rights, thus Member States have the obligation to respect and protect them in every circumstance.
The decision supports the application of the proportionality principle in European criminal cooperation, that means that the European procedure on EAW should be activated when the scope is proportionate to the instrument and resources involved. The EUCJ considered some decisions of the ECHR relevant precedents in order to establish that there was a real risk that the requested persons, if surrendered to the requesting State, would be subjected to detention conditions that infringe their fundamental rights.
The decision requires national Judicial Authorities to defer the execution of an European Arrest Warrant until the requesting State provides sufficient information to ensure that the requested persons’ fundamental rights are effectively protected. If such information is insufficient or is not given within a reasonable period of time, it remains upon the Judicial Authority of the requested State to decide whether or not to complete the procedure. […]

La Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea si pronuncia ancora una volta in relazione alla procedura di esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo1, con una sentenza che mette nuovamente in risalto (ove ve ne fosse ancora il bisogno) la straordinaria rilevanza del dialogo tra le Corti internazionali e sovranazionali e quanto il diritto interno possa essere governato anche attraverso l’influenza di organismi diversi da quelli appartenenti strettamente al sistema dell’Unione europea.