Legal summary

October 2023

Karsai v. Hungary (communicated case) - 32312/23

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Blanket and extraterritorial ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia: communicated

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Blanket and extraterritorial ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia: communicated

Article 9

Article 9-1

Manifest religion or belief

Blanket and extraterritorial ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia: communicated

Article 14

Discrimination

Alleged discrimination between terminally ill-patients to whom it is open to terminate or shorten their life by declining life-prolonging treatment and those not requiring such treatment: communicated

The applicant is a 46-year-old man, a lawyer by profession, who is in an advanced stage of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive neurodegenerative disease with no known cure. It consists in the gradual loss of motor neuron function, and hence of the voluntary control of muscles. At the end-stage of ALS, most muscles responsible for volitional motion are paralysed; moreover, speech, unaided breathing and swallowing become very difficult and ultimately impossible. Sensory and cognitive abilities may stay largely intact, and patients may maintain their intellectual functions and consciousness throughout the progression of the disease.

The applicant first experienced the symptoms of ALS in July 2021. He is no longer able to walk and take care of himself without assistance. He maintains that within a year from now he will be completely paralysed and will not be able to communicate; he will be “imprisoned in his own body without any prospect of release apart from death” and his existence will consist almost exclusively of pain and suffering. He would like to end or minimally shorten this phase of his disease by availing himself of some form of assisted dying before he reaches a state that he considers to be unbearable; however, euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in Hungary. He argues that the lack of any prospect of ending his life on his own terms is having a detrimental effect on his mental state and his ability to cope with the challenges of the disease.

The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Convention, about a “complete and extraterritorial ban” in Hungary on assisted suicide and that even if he died of assisted suicide or euthanasia outside Hungary, the relevant provision of the Criminal Code would apply and anyone assisting him in ending his life could face criminal charges in Hungary. He alleges that the lack of any possibility for him to decide to end his life on his terms is disproportionate and that the respondent State is under an obligation to provide a possibility for him to end his life on his own terms with dignity.

Relying on the same provisions in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant argues that the choice to self-determinedly die is open to those who by nature of their disease can terminate or shorten their life by declining life-prolonging treatment, but not to those who – like himself – do not require such treatment. In his view, that makes him a victim of discrimination.

Communicated under Articles 3, 8 and/or 9 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .