This paper inquires whether performing euthanasia in accordance with an advance directive is acceptable in the case of individuals with severe dementia. Specifically, the Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities is examined to determine whether it provides the basis to perform euthanasia in these cases. The meaning of certain values in particular is analysed, namely, equality, (legal) personhood, autonomy, freedom, dignity and physical and mental integrity. The intricate aspect of the identity of individuals with severe dementia merits special attention.
This paper examines how privacy-enhancing technologies such as synthetic data, federated learning and 'Secure Data Environments' can be integrated into artificial intelligence (AI) development processes to uphold key data protection principles in the UK GDPR, like storage limitation, data minimisation, purpose limitation, security, and fairness. The analysis highlights how privacy-enhancing technologies offer benefits beyond anonymisation by embedding privacy-by-design values to support responsible innovation and protect sensitive patient data throughout the design, training, and validation of medical AI systems. The paper uses the 2015 DeepMind and Royal Free case as a practical study to realise the practical and legal benefits of privacy-enhancing technologies in medical AI development, particularly involving public-private collaborations. While grounded in the UK context, the findings have broader relevance to the European Union and other international jurisdictions grappling with tensions between data protection and AI development in the healthcare context.
The European Health Data Space (EHDS) Regulation establishes a governance framework for secondary health data use, yet its material scope remains contested. A dichotomy has emerged between 'dualists', who interpret Article 1(8) as granting health data users a permanent choice between the EHDS and national regimes, and 'monists', who view the Regulation as exhaustive maximum harmonisation. This research collects and groups the arguments supporting the two interpretations, in line with the textual, systemic, and teleological methods of the EU Court of Justice. As a result, the article analyses legislative evolution, the implications of the introduced 'permit power', and the effet utile of the Regulation. While legal ambiguity persists pending CJEU clarification, the article recommends pragmatic implementation strategies to prevent administrative bottlenecks and ensure future-proof compliance.
The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products in the European Union relies on a definition-driven architecture designed to ensure legal certainty and a high level of patient protection. While effective for established technologies, this model increasingly struggles to accommodate emerging and hybrid therapeutic modalities that do not fit easily into existing legal categories. By contrast, EU veterinary pharmaceutical law has adopted a more flexible regulatory logic through the notion of novel therapy veterinary medicinal products. This article examines the normative divergence between these two frameworks and assesses whether elements of the veterinary approach could inform the future evolution of human medicines regulation. It argues that regulatory sandboxes should be understood not as ad-hoc legal experiments, but as a structured and reusable regulatory instrument, enabling selected veterinary-derived regulatory approaches to be assessed within EU human pharmaceutical law through controlled regulatory experimentation, while preserving legal certainty and patient protection.
Clinical practice guidelines are frequently considered a source of medical knowledge and guidance on how medical interventions should be conducted. The relevance of such guidelines was recognised by the Council of Europe, which perceives them not only as a tool for safeguarding the appropriate quality of healthcare but also as a measure that can be used to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights. Because the use of the guidelines' potential depends on their quality and authority, the Council of Europe explores the conditions that should be met to recognise guidelines as an appropriate model of conduct for healthcare professionals. Conclusions resulting from Council recommendations may be used to highlight the consequences of the interaction between medical standards and fundamental rights, and to ascertain whether and on what conditions it is possible to use clinical guidelines as a determinant of medical standards and benchmarks for assessing the acts of healthcare professionals.
The paper primarily examines the interpretation of the right to health protection of migrants in health pandemics under the law of the Council of Europe (CoE). The study analyses the CoE's right to health legal framework, vis-à-vis pandemic response. The paper focuses on the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Social Charter (ESC), which are the two most important human rights treaties adopted by the CoE under the authority of the European Council and their interpretations by their monitoring bodies. It finds that there exist legal impediments to migrants' right to health under the law of the CoE. The paper asserts that these legal impediments may negatively impact pandemic response and offers recommendations to address them.
The case concerns whether, under Article 3 of the Convention, the continued detention of the applicant, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, is compatible with his state of health. There is a positive obligation for the State to provide the necessary care. The task of the Court is to determine whether the competent national authorities did what could reasonably be expected of them to provide the applicant with the recommended care and thus fulfil the obligation established by the national judges themselves. The Court finds a violation of Article 3, in the circumstances of the case, not requiring the end of the applicant's detention.
This study examines the decisions of the German and Austrian constitutional courts on the subject of assisted suicide in a comparative legal framework. Both judgments are based on human dignity and the right to self-determination, but differ in their definition of the limits of the state's obligation to protect life. The German Federal Constitutional Court interprets the right to self-determination in the broadest sense: It states that the motives for a decision to end one's life cannot be subject to external evaluation, as they fall exclusively within the sphere of the individual's inner convictions. The Austrian Constitutional Court, on the other hand, merely declared that a total ban was unconstitutional and left it to the legislature to lay down detailed rules. As a social and political consensus in favour of stricter regulation has emerged in Austria, the legislature limits the circle of eligible persons in the Sterbeverfügungsgesetz (Living Will Act) to those who are terminally ill or suffering from a life-threatening illness and layed down detailed procedural safeguards. The fundamental difference between the two models can thus be summarised as follows: Germany recognises personal autonomy under all circumstances without any restrictions, while Austria restricts access to assisted suicide more strictly and limits it to the seriously ill in order to prevent abuse.
This article analyses how the notion of health data under the GDPR has evolved through the legal instruments and provisions on health data sharing in the Data Governance Act (DGA) and the European Health Data Space (EHDS), aiming both legal sources to facilitate data access and governance, including electronic health data for its primary and secondary use, by establishing harmonised rules. These regulations open opportunities to enhance cross-border data access, the promotion of data altruism, and the development of data governance models facilitating biomedical research. In the specific context of rare diseases, however, significant challenges remain emerging from variations between EU Member States implementation of the EHDS. In particular, the EHDS's secondary use framework, the genomic and biobank data exception, and the coexistence with the DGA's consent‑based data altruism model create a complex legal landscape for rare disease research. This contribution intends to clarify the legal bases for secondary use to improve the capacity to protect data subjects' right to data protection, while preserving data value and utility in biomedical research within the context of rare diseases.
While digital health technologies have rendered national borders technically obsolete, the European Union's (EU) legal framework for cross-border telemedicine remains fragmented. This paper examines the tension between the EU's internal market logic - favouring the free movement of services - and the Member States' protected competence over health system organisation under Article 168(7) TFEU. By analysing the limitations of the 2011 Patients' Rights Directive, the study evaluates whether the recent European Health Data Space (EHDS) Regulation and the broader European Health Union can provide a coherent regulatory foundation for digital mobility in the context of cross-border telemedicine. This will be done by relying on two primary legal frictions: professional licensing and reimbursement mechanisms. The paper argues that for the EHDS Regulation to succeed, it must move beyond technical interoperability to address the underlying legal-ethical conflicts of digital sovereignty.
This paper investigates the structural limitations of cross-border healthcare mobility under Directive 2011/24/EU, analysing whether the European Health Data Space (EHDS) could offer a constitutionally compatible solution to its limited practical effectiveness. Although the directive formally recognises patients' right to reimbursement for treatment abroad, organisational fragmentation and inadequate digital interoperability persistently constrain its effective exercise. Against this background, the article introduces the interpretative concept of 'non-immediate primary use' of electronic health data. This is defined as a professionally mediated and infrastructural process designed to identify appropriate cross-border treatment options when national systems are clearly inadequate. Using obesity as a case study of structural discrimination, the analysis argues that digital coordination under the EHDS could implement existing mobility rights without expanding the competences of the Union under Article 168(7) TFEU. The EHDS is therefore presented as an infrastructural instrument that can reinforce substantive equality within the current constitutional allocation of powers.
This article examines the legal nature and enforcement of insurance contracts in Ukraine amid martial law and ongoing military aggression. Special attention is given to the challenges of insuring life and health for borrowers, particularly military personnel and residents of frontline or temporarily occupied territories. The analysis highlights systemic problems such as the exclusion of war-related risks, ambiguity in contract terms, and unjustified refusals to pay insurance claims. Using case law and legislative developments, the article identifies gaps in the legal framework and proposes targeted reforms to enhance law enforcement, protect policyholders' rights, and stabilize the insurance market. Emphasis is placed on the need to incorporate war risks into insurance coverage, strengthen regulatory oversight, promote judicial consistency, and introduce digital and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The article also outlines prospects for legislative and institutional reform, taking into account international legal standards and Ukraine's evolving socio-economic conditions.
Within human rights bodies, mental health in the context of migration hardly constitutes a central theme. However, it is not altogether overlooked; elements of migrants' mental wellbeing are indirectly addressed, notably in relation to ill-treatment, the right to family life, non-discrimination, and equality, among others. This contribution brings together these sparse references and examines whether legal standards can be further developed at the intersection of mental health, migration, and the broader human rights framework. Drawing upon developments from the European Convention on Human Rights - as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and complemented by standards of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture - along with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its monitoring committee, the contribution provides a joint framework. It synthesises human rights standards and puts forward concrete recommendations for States to comply with obligations under these instruments and beyond.
Abdolkhani and Karimnia v Turkey,App No 30471/08, 22 September 2009 ...... 156 Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK,App Nos 26766/05 and 2228/06 [2008] ECHR 2 ...................................................................................................... 452 Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK,App Nos 26766/05 and 2228/06 [2011] ECHR 2127 (Grand Chamber) ....................................................................................... 452 Amann v Switzerland,App No 27798/95 (2000) 30 EHHR 843 ........................... 99 Balázs v Hungary,App No 15529/12, 20 October 2015 ...................................... 130 DH v Czech Republic,App No 57325/00 (2008) 47 EHRR 3 ............................. 130 Fuchs v Poland,App No 33870/96 [2003] ECHR 73 .......................................... 539 Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom,App No 4158/05 (2010) 50 EHRR 45 ..... 99 Jamaa v Italy,App No 27765/09 (2012) 55 EHRR 21 ......................................... 152 Kudła v Poland,App No 30210/96 (2002) 35 EHRR 198 ................................... 539 Leander v Sweden,App No 9248/81 (1987) 9 EHHR 433 .................................... 99 Marper v United Kingdom,App Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04 (2009) 48 EHHR 50 ................................................................................................................. 99 MSS v Belgium and Greece,App No 30696/09 (2011) 53 EHRR 2 .... 147, 156, 157 Ruiz Rivera v Switzerland,App No 8300/06, 8 February 2014 ........................... 130 Segerstedt-Wiberg v Sweden,App No 62332/00 (2007) 44 EHRR 2 .................... 99
