CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 206 April 2017 A.M. and A.K. v. Hungary (dec.) - 21320/15 and 35837/15 Decision 4.4.2017 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-3-a Manifestly ill-founded Alleged lack of legal certainty as regards individual importation of cannabis-based medication: inadmissible Facts – The applicants, who both had serious health conditions which they submitted could be alleviated by cannabis-based medication, complained under Article   8 of the Convention that domestic legislation providing a legal avenue for requesting individual permission to import such medication lacked legal certainty. Law – Article 35 §   3   (a): The marketing of cannabis-based medication was not authorised in Hungary and possession and use of cannabis remained illegal. However, under domestic law a person wishing to use a medication which had no marketing authorisation could apply – on the basis of a medical prescription issued by a doctor – for an individual import licence. The applicants had failed to show that their doctors or any other medical professionals were of the opinion that their respective conditions required or were suitable for treatment with cannabis-based medication. Instead, they submitted a number of articles and medical studies containing information about the potential benefits of cannabis-based products. While it was not the Court’s function to speculate on what would be the best course of treatment for the applicants’ respective medical conditions, it nonetheless considered that their use of any other medicinal products – including those based on cannabis derivatives – would have to be based on an individualised medical finding rather than on general research conclusions or a mere belief on the part of the applicants that a medicine available elsewhere could alleviate their symptoms. The applicants had not indicated whether treatment using cannabis-based medication had ever been discussed with their doctors or refused by them. Nor did they provide anything to indicate that either of them had ever tried to avail themselves of the legal procedure available in Hungary with a view to obtaining such medication lawfully. No evidence had been adduced to show that any doctor in Hungary had ever been prosecuted for prescribing cannabis-based medication or had ever refused to do so for fear of prosecution. The Court could not infer that the legislative avenue existing in Hungarian law was inaccessible, not foreseeable in its effects or was formulated in such a way as to create a chilling effect on doctors wishing to prescribe such medication. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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