“원치 않는 삶(Wrongful Life)”과 관련한 유럽인권재판소의 모리스 대 프랑스 판결 (The Case MAURICE v. FRANCE of the European Court of Human Rights Case related to “Wrongful Life”)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국가족법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 가족법연구 / 38권 / 3호 / 1 ~ 32페이지
· 저자명 : 김가을

초록

The European Court of Human Rights case “Maurice v. France” is an extension of the 1997 French Conseil d’État (Council of State) ruling, which granted compensation for emotional distress and disruption of life, as well as special care costs due to disability as pecuniary damages to parents who lost the opportunity for abortion due to medical malpractice and gave birth to a disabled child. It also follows the 2000 French Court of Cassation decision that recognized the disabled child's own right to claim damages for their disability.
The basic facts of the “Maurice v. France” case are as follows: In 1990, the Maurice couple gave birth to their first child (A), who was born with a genetic disease (Type I Spinal Muscular Atrophy). In 1992, during their second pregnancy (B), genetic testing revealed a risk of genetic disease, leading them to choose induced abortion. In 1997, during their third pregnancy (C), they again requested prenatal testing. The Paris public hospital (AP-HP) assured the couple that the fetus was not affected by the genetic disease and was healthy. However, before C turned two years old, symptoms of the genetic disease began to show. According to the hospital’s report, there had been medical errors in analyzing the samples. The Maurice couple and their child C filed a lawsuit for damages against the public hospital, but the previously admitted parental damages for special care due to disability and the disabled child's own damages were not granted. This was because the French government had enacted Law No. 2002-303, which stated that “No one may claim to have suffered damage by the mere fact of his or her birth” and that “parents cannot claim damages for the special care arising from their child's disability.” Notably, this law was made applicable not only to future cases but also to ongoing litigation, thus rendering the Maurice couple’s lawsuit un- successful.
The Maurice couple and their child C filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that their property rights protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, along with their right to a fair trial under Article 6. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled that restricting an individual's property rights requires a public interest, and particularly, a fair balance (proportionality) between the public interest and the restriction of property rights. In this case, while the public interest sought by the French government was not in doubt, the Grand Chamber judged that the means to achieve this public interest were not appropriate. This was because the retroactive application of Law No. 2002-303 prevented the Maurice couple from claiming damages against the responsible hospital, resulting in significant financial loss. Thus, the Grand Chamber found that Article 1 of Law No. 2002-303 violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It is worth noting that some judges of the Grand Chamber (including Judge Bonello) expressed concern that Law No. 2002-303 granted immunity to certain medical professionals and facilities from liability for damages caused by their negligence.

영어초록

The European Court of Human Rights case “Maurice v. France” is an extension of the 1997 French Conseil d’État (Council of State) ruling, which granted compensation for emotional distress and disruption of life, as well as special care costs due to disability as pecuniary damages to parents who lost the opportunity for abortion due to medical malpractice and gave birth to a disabled child. It also follows the 2000 French Court of Cassation decision that recognized the disabled child's own right to claim damages for their disability.
The basic facts of the “Maurice v. France” case are as follows: In 1990, the Maurice couple gave birth to their first child (A), who was born with a genetic disease (Type I Spinal Muscular Atrophy). In 1992, during their second pregnancy (B), genetic testing revealed a risk of genetic disease, leading them to choose induced abortion. In 1997, during their third pregnancy (C), they again requested prenatal testing. The Paris public hospital (AP-HP) assured the couple that the fetus was not affected by the genetic disease and was healthy. However, before C turned two years old, symptoms of the genetic disease began to show. According to the hospital’s report, there had been medical errors in analyzing the samples. The Maurice couple and their child C filed a lawsuit for damages against the public hospital, but the previously admitted parental damages for special care due to disability and the disabled child's own damages were not granted. This was because the French government had enacted Law No. 2002-303, which stated that “No one may claim to have suffered damage by the mere fact of his or her birth” and that “parents cannot claim damages for the special care arising from their child's disability.” Notably, this law was made applicable not only to future cases but also to ongoing litigation, thus rendering the Maurice couple’s lawsuit un- successful.
The Maurice couple and their child C filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that their property rights protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, along with their right to a fair trial under Article 6. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled that restricting an individual's property rights requires a public interest, and particularly, a fair balance (proportionality) between the public interest and the restriction of property rights. In this case, while the public interest sought by the French government was not in doubt, the Grand Chamber judged that the means to achieve this public interest were not appropriate. This was because the retroactive application of Law No. 2002-303 prevented the Maurice couple from claiming damages against the responsible hospital, resulting in significant financial loss. Thus, the Grand Chamber found that Article 1 of Law No. 2002-303 violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It is worth noting that some judges of the Grand Chamber (including Judge Bonello) expressed concern that Law No. 2002-303 granted immunity to certain medical professionals and facilities from liability for damages caused by their negligence.

참고자료

· 없음