| Applicant name | PINDO MULLA |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Spain |
| Application no. | 15541/20 |
| Date | 17/09/2024 |
| Judges | Síofra O’Leary, President, Marko Bošnjak, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Arnfinn Bårdsen, Georges Ravarani, Egidijus Kūris, Branko Lubarda, Mārtiņš Mits, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Pauliine Koskelo, María Elósegui, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Ioannis Ktistakis, Frédéric Krenc, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Anne Louise Bormann |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (health) |
| Type of privacy | bodily integrity; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Blood transfusion against will |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that in the course of surgery performed pursuant to judicial authorisation she had been given blood transfusions despite her previously expressed refusal of this form of treatment. She considered that there had been a profound interference with her right to respect for her private life, and criticised both the medical and judicial decisions that were taken in her regard as being contrary to her right to self-determination. |
| Analysis | The Court fully appreciates that the actions taken in relation to the applicant on the day in question by the staff of both hospitals were motivated by the overriding concern to ensure the effective treatment of a patient who was under their care, in keeping with the most fundamental norm of the medical profession. It does not question their assessments regarding the severity of the applicant’s condition at the time, the urgency of the need to treat her, the medical options available in the circumstances, or that the applicant’s life was saved that day. However, the authorisation by the duty judge to proceed with whatever treatment was considered necessary resulted from a decision-making process that was affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of the applicant’s wishes, which had been recorded in various forms and at various times in writing. Since neither the applicant nor anyone connected with her was aware of the decision taken by the duty judge, it was not possible, even in theory, to make good that omission. Neither this issue, nor the issue of her capacity to take a decision, were addressed in an adequate manner in the subsequent proceedings. In light of this, it cannot be said that the domestic system adequately responded to the applicant’s complaint that her wishes had been wrongly overruled |
| Other Article violation? | Violation of Article 8 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9; |
| Damage awarded | by nine votes to eight, that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; Holds, unanimously, that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 14,000 (fourteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |