The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg issued a judgement in A.R. v. Poland, recognising the violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – concerning the right to respect for private and household life. The case afraid the limitation of the alleged "access to abortion" after the ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court of 22 October 2020, which confirmed the constitutional protection of unborn life children, besides the sick ones.
The complaint was lodged by a resident of Krakow, marked by initials A.R., who, being pregnant around 17 weeks, decided to have an abortion in a private clinic in the Netherlands after the diagnosis of a genetic defect. The papers show that the complaint was prepared utilizing a form developed and promoted by the Federation for Women and household Planning, known for its efforts to liberalise abortion rules in Poland.
The Court of Strasbourg found that Poland had infringed Article 8 of the Convention, but did not see the infringement of Article 3 concerning the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. The ruling besides referred to earlier cases – including M.L. v. Poland and A., B. and C. v. Ireland – where the Court adopted a akin explanation of the concept of "private life".
The Polish authorities stressed in their position that the European Convention on Human Rights does not warrant the right to abortion, nor the work of the State to guarantee specified a procedure.
The judgement obliges Poland to pay damages of EUR 15,000 for non-material harm and EUR 1 495 for property harm – within 3 months of its finalisation.
Although the Court's decision formally concerns a separate case, it is simply a precedent and fits into a broader trend of force from global institutions on countries which, in their constitution, defend life from conception.
It is worth recalling that Article 30 of the Polish Constitution speaks of the natural and inalienable dignity of man as a origin of all rights and freedoms. In this light Life defence The unborn is not a question of worldview, but a manifestation of faithfulness to the rule of equal protection of all human being – regardless of age, wellness or place of residence.
The ETPC ruling so raises the question of the limits of global institutions' interference in sovereign decisions of the states and whether right to life – the foundation of all another rights – may be subject to a subjective “right to choose”.
jb
Source: PAP
