Under Article 8 ECHR, States are under both a negative obligation not to directly interfere with the health of an individual (unless in a manner justified under the ECHR) and a positive obligation to take measures to safeguard the health of those within their jurisdiction, as required and appropriate in the specific circumstances.

Although matters of healthcare policy fall in principle within States’ margin of appreciation,[1] positive obligations require States to legislate or implement practical measures to protect individuals' health and lives and ensure they are informed of health risks,[2] establish regulations compelling hospitals to safeguard patients’ lives,[3] and uphold high professional standards among healthcare providers,[4] including those in the private sector. The Court has interpreted Article 8 as covering the right to the protection of one’s physical, moral and psychological integrity, as well as the right to exercise one’s personal autonomy and self-determination in making choices about one’s body, including by refusing medical treatment or requesting a particular form of medical treatment.[5] Other Articles through which the Court approaches health issues are Article 2 (Right to life),[6] Article 3 (Prohibition of torture)[7] and Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination).[8] In its case-law concerning health, the Court often refers to Convention 108,[9] the Oviedo Convention,[10] as well as other relevant instruments within the framework of the Council of Europe or beyond.[11]

 

The ESC explicitly guarantees the right to protection of health (Article 11) and the right to social and medical assistance (Article 13). Access to healthcare is a prerequisite for preserving human dignity.[12]

States must ensure that healthcare services are accessible, effective, and inclusive by allocating sufficient resources, implementing robust operational procedures, and addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups.[13] Integrating trustworthy AI systems into healthcare delivery can support states in achieving these aims. Article 11 imposes three key obligations on States, either directly or in collaboration with public or private organisations: to take appropriate measures (i) to eliminate, as far as possible, the causes of ill health, (ii) to provide advisory and educational facilities that promote health and encourage individual responsibility; and (iii) to prevent, as far as possible, epidemic, endemic, and other diseases, as well as accidents. States are further required to protect vulnerable groups,[14] such as the homeless, older persons, persons with disabilities, and those with irregular migration status, ensuring their right to health remains uncompromised, even under restrictive conditions. Additionally, foreigners who are nationals of other Parties lawfully residing or working in a Party’s territory are entitled to health protection under the ESC.

 


[1] Vavricka and others v. the Czech Republic [GC], No. 47621/13 and 5 others, 8 April 2021, §§ 274, 285.

[2] Brincat and others v. Malta, No. 60908/11 and 4 others, 24 July 2014, § 101; Guerra and others v. Italy, No. 116/1996/735/932, 19 February1998, §§ 57-60; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 32555/96, 19 October 2005.

[3] Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], No. 32967/96, 17 January 2002, § 49; Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey, No. 54969/09, 25 June 2019, § 90.

[4] Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], No. 56080/13, 19 December 2017, §§ 186-190.

[5] Niemietz v. Germany, No. 13710/88, 16 December 1992, § 29; Glass v. the United Kingdom, No. 61827/00, 9 March 2004, §§ 74-83; Tysiąc v. Poland, No. 5410/03, 20 March 2007, § 107; Pindo Mulla v. Spain [GC], No. 12345/19, 15 April 2024, § 98; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, No. 2346/02, 29 April 2002, § 63; Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, Nos.  32401/10 and 19 others, 7 November 2019, § 162.

[6] Center of Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania [GC], No. 47848/08, 17 July 2014, §§ 145-147; Oyal v. Turkey, No. 4864/05, 23 March 2010, § 72

[7] Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], No. 41738/10, 13 December 2016, §§ 183-193; D. v. the United Kingdom, No. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, § 54; Aswat v. the United Kingdom, No. 17299/12, 16 April 2013, §§ 55-57.

[8] Kiyutin v. Russia, No. 2700/10, 10 March 2011, §§56-58, 74

[9] See e.g. S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2008, §§ 41 and 103.

[11] See e.g. the reference in Biriuk v. Lithuania (No. 23373/03, 25 November 2008, § 21) to Recommendation No. R (89) 14 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the ethical issues of HIV infection in the health care and social settings (1989) or the reference in Pindo Mulla v. Spain [GC], No. 15541/20, 17 September 2024, § 77, to the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO in 2005.

[12] International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. France, Complaint No. 14/2003, decision on the merits of 3 November 2004, §31.

[14] International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece, Complaint No. 173/2018, decision on the merits of 26 January 2021, § 218.