| Applicant name | LINDHOLM AND THE ESTATE AFTER LEIF LINDHOLM |
| Applicant type | natural person; legal person |
| Number of applicants | 2 |
| Country | Denmark |
| Application no. | 25636/22 |
| Date | 05/11/2024 |
| Judges | Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Tim Eicke, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu, Mateja Đurović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Necessary (health) |
| Type of privacy | bodily integrity |
| Keywords | blood transfusion; jahova’s witness |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complained that the Supreme Court judgment of 1 February 2022 (see paragraph 33 above), approving the lawfulness of administering the blood transfusion to L despite his previously expressed refusal of this form of treatment, |
| Analysis | legal person inadmissible The Court recently examined the issue of the “previously expressed wishes of the patient” in the light of the Convention, the Oviedo Convention, and a comparative survey undertaken for the purpose of the case in Pindo Mulla. The survey showed a diversity of practice in Europe when it came to the way the right to life and the right to respect for the autonomy of the patient were reconciled by taking account of the patient’s previously expressed views. The Court pointed out that both the principle of giving binding legal effect to advance directives and the formal and practical way of doing so come within the margin of appreciation of the Contracting States. In other words, the Member States are under no obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to give binding effect to advance directives, for example that signed by L. n the light of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Court considers that the reasons relied upon by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 1 February 2022 were both relevant and sufficient to establish that the interference complained about can be regarded as having been “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the aims pursued, namely the protection of health, and that the authorities of the respondent State acted within their margin of appreciation, having taken into account the criteria set out in the Court’s case‑law, notably Pindo Mulla. It therefore follows that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9. |
| Other Article violation? | no violation 8+14 |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |