The Supreme Court to Decide if Parents Can Challenge Euthanasia Grant for Adult Children

The Supreme Court will establish whether parents can legally challenge the granting of euthanasia to an adult child with full capacity. This decision stems from a case in Catalonia where the court acknowledged the father's legitimate interest in seeking judicial oversight of the administrative decision.

The Supreme Court's Administrative Chamber has accepted the appeal filed by the Generalitat against the Catalonia High Court's ruling, which allowed the father to challenge the decision.

The Generalitat argues that the Organic Law on Euthanasia (LORE) does not explicitly grant third parties the right to appeal the decision, relying instead on the procedural safeguards provided by medical professionals and the Catalonia Guarantee and Evaluation Commission.

The Catalan Government believes the Supreme Court's ruling is necessary as the issue could impact numerous cases, noting that between 2021 and 2024, 824 euthanasia requests were made in Catalonia, with 445 approved, and the numbers have increased with the gradual implementation of LORE.

The Third Chamber, in a decision reported by Europa Press, agrees that the matter is of significant legal interest due to the lack of existing jurisprudence and the fundamental rights involved.

Thus, the Supreme Court has decided to determine the conditions under which a third party, such as a parent, can be recognised as having a legitimate interest in judicial proceedings related to the granting of euthanasia to an adult with full decision-making capacity.

The court considers it necessary to clarify the limits and conditions for third-party intervention, considering the established criteria by both the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights on euthanasia matters.

The specific case originated from a decision by the Catalonia Guarantee and Evaluation Commission, which authorised euthanasia for an adult man who was not incapacitated.

The father appealed, arguing that the right to life was at stake, highlighting the state's obligation to protect vulnerable individuals, as his son had mental health issues and was not in a position to make such a decision.

A Barcelona administrative court dismissed the father's appeal due to lack of standing, stating that being the father of the applicant was insufficient to establish legitimate interest.

The court also noted that the father had not sought any legal support measures for his son's capacity, who was considered an adult capable of exercising his rights freely.

In this context, the court added that the son lived alone and had a poor relationship with his father, requesting that no family or close person be informed of the euthanasia proceedings.

Both the father and the Public Prosecutor appealed to the Catalonia High Court, which ruled in their favour, stating that parents' judicial standing cannot be dismissed indiscriminately when they have a legitimate interest in their children's lives.

The Catalonia High Court emphasised that recognising parents' standing does not guarantee a favourable judicial decision but allows them to ensure the administration's decision complies with the law.

The Catalonia High Court highlighted the greater risk in preventing administrative decisions from being reviewed, which could have irreversible consequences.

In this regard, the court considered that the father's arguments focused on the administrative procedure rather than the correctness of his son's decision, particularly regarding the administration's verification of his son's capacity and free will.

Furthermore, the Catalonia High Court distinguished between the standing to file an administrative appeal, granted to those with a legitimate interest, and the specific standing to participate in the administrative procedure under LORE, explaining that these do not have to coincide, allowing judicial standing even without prior administrative involvement.