CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 130 May 2010 Haas v. Switzerland (dec.) - 31322/07 Decision 20.5.2010 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Refusal to make medication available to assist suicide of a mental patient: admissible   Article 1 Jurisdiction of states No refusal of territorial jurisdiction by domestic courts: admissible   Facts – The applicant had been suffering from a serious bipolar affective disorder for about twenty years. Considering that his illness prevented him from living in dignity, he asked a Swiss private-law association to help him put an end to his life. The applicant asked several psychiatrists to prescribe him a lethal prescription drug, but to no avail. With the help of the association, he then sought permission from various authorities to purchase the drug from a chemist without a prescription, again to no avail. He appealed to the Federal Court against the decisions not to supply the drug, but his appeal was rejected in November 2006. Law – Article 8: The applicant, a Swiss national who lived outside Switzerland during part of the proceedings, had applied to the Swiss authorities, via a Swiss private-law association, to supply him with a lethal drug without a prescription. The authorities had refused and he had taken the matter before the competent courts, which had rejected his appeals on the merits. At no time did the courts declare that they did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s case. The questions raised by this application therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the respondent State for the purposes of Article   1 of the Convention and engaged its international responsibility. The Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the application. In the light of the parties’ submissions, the applicant’s complaint raised complex issues of fact and law which could not be resolved at this stage in the examination of the application, but required examination on the merits. Conclusion : admissible (majority).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes