Strasbourg grants emergency hearing in Charlie Gard appeal

10 June 2017 by

Yates v United Kingdom – here

Update: On 19 June the parents lodged a substantive application with the Strasbourg Court. 

In my last post on this case, I explained that the Supreme Court had granted a short stay to 5pm Friday 9th June to enable the parents to ask the Strasbourg Court to intervene. So far, the courts have ruled in favour of Great Ormond Street’s application to withdraw artificial ventilation from Charlie.

Shortly after my post, on Friday 9 June, the ECtHR ordered an emergency hearing. To that end, it requested the UK to keep Charlie alive until the end of 13 June.

As the ECtHR website tells us – here – , the Strasbourg judges made the request

in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it

and they have asked the UK to provide Charlie

with such treatment and nursing care as may be appropriate to ensure that he suffers the least distress and retains the greatest dignity consistent, insofar as possible, with maintaining life until midnight on Tuesday 13 June 2017.

The parents’ advisers had thought ahead. On 6 June 2017, and in anticipation of an adverse decision by the Supreme Court, the parents had filed an application for urgent interim measures under Rule 39 of the ECtHR procedure. See here for ECHR guidance on what you need for such an application.

The Strasbourg Court, showing considerable willing, had said that it would respond to a request from the parents within 24 hours of any ruling by the Supreme Court against the parents, hence the expiry time of the Supreme Court’s stay at the end of Friday.

Urgent interim measures are granted in exceptional circumstances when the applicants can convince the court that they would otherwise face an imminent risk of irreversible harm.

The application, seeking to invoke the parents’ Article 8 rights, will be considered next week  by a panel of seven judges. A decision to grant interim measures does not affect any subsequent decisions on admissibility or merits.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: