Right to life
1.
The subjective and the institutional side
of the right
2. Relation to the right to human dignity
2.1. Principle of impartibility
2.2. The separation of the two rights
3. The „difficult cases” of these rights
3.1. Death penalty
3.2. Abortion
3.3.Euthanasia
Constitution Article 54 para. (1) right to life
and human dignity

the most fundamental, relation
Preamble of UN Universal Declaration
Article 1
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
ECHR Article 2
1. The subjective and the
institutional side of the right
Negative side: against state
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): Case of
McCann
• Constitutional Court of the Republic of Hungary(MKAB):
absolute fundamental right  no necessity-proportionality
test
- marginal cases: death penalty, abortion, euthanasia
- military oath, conscript demolition expert
- gun licence  right to self-defence
- police handling of gun
- (shooting down terrorist plane)
Institutional side: state’s obligation of
protection of life
• US: DeShaney
• G: Schleyer
• ECtHR: Velikova
• MKAB: Constitution Article 8 para. (1) 
objective obligation of state (Decision
64/1991 AB)
2. Relation to the right to human
dignity
2.1. Principle of impartibility
• BVerfG: dignity goes with life but not absolute
right
• MKAB: impartibility  absolute right

monistic human view (unity of body and soul)

dualistic human view
2.2. The separation of the two rights
- legal positivism  moral choice from worths (A.
Takács, B. Pokol)
- different moral approximation  ideological
neutrality of state  „ sanctity of life”
Dignity can’t be restricted BUT taking away
of life is legitimate in extraordinary situation,
not arbitrary, namely it doesn’t go necessarily
with injury of dignity
• justifiable defence
• emergency
• better to die (euthanasia)
• it depends on her/his whether somebody stay
alive
3. The „difficult cases” of these
rights
3.1. Death penalty
• ECHR Additional Protocol 6 (1983): prohibition
in peace
• International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights facultative Additional Protocol 2 (1989)
• EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 2 para.
(2) + Article 19 para. (2): prohibition of the event
of extradition
• ECHR Additional Protocol 13 (2002): prohibition
at all times
• US Constitutional Amendment 14 – due process +
Constitutional Amendment 8 – „ prohibition of
inhuman and uncommon penalty”
- Furman v. Georgia (1972): arbitrary and
discriminating court practice
- Gregg v. Georgia (1976): new rules -reason
• ECHR: Case of Soering (1989): death-row
syndrom  no extradition
• Hungary, South-Afrika, Lithuania, Ukraine:
decisions of Constitutional Court
• MKAB: Decision 23/1990 AB
- Constitution Article 54 para. (1) permit
- Constitution Article 8 para. (2) prohibit
- lex posterior derogat priori (?)
- majority of 8:1
* impartible, unrestrictable fundamental
right
* have no effect of development of
deliquency
* international legal conventions
- Dissenting opinion of P. Schmidt: collision of
Articles 8 and 54
- Concurring reasonig of T. Lábady, Ö.
Tersztyánszky: also on the basis of Article 54
- Concurring reasonig of L. Sólyom: „always
arbitrary”  contravene Article 54, too
- A. Szabó:proportional, repressive theory of
punishment  talion
- J. Zlinszky: preventive theory  lack of
repressive effect
Prohibition of referendum: Decision 11/1999 AB
3.2. Abortion
Pro choice (ability of self-determination)  pro life
(theory of creation)
Compromises:
- dated model
- indication model  crisis indication
• US: Roe v. Wade (1973)  unconstitutional act in
Texas
- privacy:Constitutional Amendment 14 and 9:
right of woman to decide – trimester
regulation
Webster (1989), Casey (1992)
• G: BVerfG 1. (1975)  right of foetus to life
(conception and 14th day)  homicide
BVerfG 2. (1993)  unconstitutional that
abortion without indication isn’t illegal BUT
criminal impunity after advising
• Ireland: radical opinion about protection of foetus
 only life of mother
• ECHR: - Brüggemann (1977)  right of
foetus to life ?
- X. v. UK: right of foetus?, right of
women to privacy
- H.v. Norway: margin of appreciation
• MKAB:
- Decision 64/1991 AB: formal violation of
constitution
content: two oppurtunities of legislature
concurring reasonig of T. Lábady: „ innate right”
 right to life from conception
- Act LXXIX of 1992: 12 weeks, acute crisis
- Case of Dávodi: contingent legal capacity
- Decision 48/1998 AB: advising instead of
symbolic indication
dissenting opinion of T. Lábady, concurring
reasonig of A. Holló
3.3.Euthanasia
Voluntary – non-voluntary, passive – active, direct –
indirect
US: refusal of provision  informed consent
- Case of Cruzan: lack of unambigious
and strong evidence
- Kevorkian
- State Oregon
- „mimimalism” of SC  legislation of
member states
ECHR: Case of Pretty (2002)  no right to death
The Netherlands, Belgium: active euthanasia
Hungary: - Supreme Court: Case of Binder
- Act on public health: conditions of
refusal of treatment
- Decision 22/2003 AB
* passive euthanasia = part of
right to self-determination, which
can’ t be curtailed totally
* dissenting opinion of M. Bihari,
A. Holló, I. Kukorelli
* active euthanasia: no absence
Thank you for your attention!