Abstract

With a decision adopted on 28 June 2017, the European Court of human rights declared manifestly ill- founded the application made by Charlie Gard's parents against the authorization to suspend the life- sustaining treatment of their son. The article argues that, while this kind of decision allowed a rap-id response to the applicants' query, it presents a number of controversial profiles. In fact, decisions on the admissibility can be adopted by 'a majority' of the Chamber's members, without a clear indication of the number and positions of judges in disagreement with the majority. The particularly sensitive issues of the "Gard" case would have deserved a more accurate analysis and major transparency.