ECJ bans patents on transplantation of embryo cells, Brüstle, C-34/10

Professor Olivier Brüstle got the German patent related to neural precursor cells and the processes for their production from embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes, but was attacked by Greenpeace and finally lost proceedings before the Grand Chamber of the ECJ.

Professor Brüstle tried to argue that, in fact, he does not work with “embryo”, but the ECJ replied that “embryo” is an autonomous concept of the EU law and gave it the widest sense possible – thus, covering any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis (§§ 26, 38).

Professor Brüstle then argued that he does not use embryos for “industrial or commercial purposes” but for “purposes of scientific research” only. The ECJ replied that the word “patent” implies its industrial or commercial application (§§ 41-42). Therefore, according to the Grand Chamber, “industrial or commercial purposes” cover “scientific” ones (§ 46).

Thus, the transplantation of embryo cells became unpatentable.

UN Human Rights Committee destroys the hopes of Nazi victims, Sechremelis v Greece, 1507/2006

The UN Human Rights Committee followed the line of the ECtHR and the ECJ, and dismissed the hopes of Greek families to get compensation for the massacre of their relatives by the Nazis in case Sechremelis et al. v Greece, 1507/2006.

In this particular case the Nazis massacred the respective relatives in Distomo on 10/06/1944, and the Greek Court of Cassation confirmed their right to compensation from Germany on 26/03/2000. However the enforcement of such judgment against a foreign State is subjected to consent of the Minister of Justice. In this case he didn’t agree (§ 10.2).

The Committee “noted” two reasons for this View in § 10.5:

1) This limitation on enforcement does not impair the very essence of the right to an effective judicial protection.

2) It may not be excluded that the Greek judgment could be enforced sometime in the indefinite future.

3/14 Committee members dissented.

European Court of Human Rights justifies shooting at demonstrators during the G8 summit, Giuliani v Italy, 23458/02

The Grand Chamber annuls the Chamber judgment finding a violation of the right to life in case Giuliani. During the anti-globalist protests against the G8 summit in Genoa on 20/07/2001, 23-years old Carlo Giuliani picked an empty fire extinguisher off and possibly indented to throw it towards the military police jeep. Other demonstrators were throwing little stones. Policeman (carabiniere) Mario Placanica shot into the face of Carlo, and when the body of the latter fell, the police jeep twice drove over him.

According to the 10 of 17 Grand Chamber judges, the carabiniere acted in self-defence (§ 189). Possibly such a statement might have a sense but the very carabiniere recognized that he had not seen at whom he fired. This simple but ignored fact denies the capacity of the policeman to appreciate the individual danger caused by Carlo Giuliani.

The family of Carlo argued that the State had to equip carabiniere with non-lethal weapon, and not with semi-automatic combat pistols. The Grand Chamber replied that the use of combat weapon was justified because it was an attack of demonstrators, and not a planned operation for dispersion (§ 216).

The Chamber considered that the fact that the family had only 3 hours to nominate an expert for performing the autopsy violated the right to life. Right after a superficial autopsy an authorisation was given to cremate the body – even before the content of the expert medical report was known. As a result, it became impossible to determine whether the shot had been direct. The Grand Chamber annulled the Chamber judgment in arguing that even if the shot was direct the use of semi-automatic combat weapon was justified.

The Italian judge supported shooting, while judges Boštjan Zupančič and Françoise Tulkens related to critical legal approaches led the dissenting minority.

Ciao Carlo.