Malta found to have breached human rights by denying IVF due to woman's age

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has declared that the local health authorities’ rejection of a Maltese couple’s request for a second IVF cycle due to the woman’s age had breached their fundamental rights.

In a judgement handed down on Thursday, the ECHR found a violation of the couple’s right to private and family life, ordering the Maltese State to pay them €8,000 in damages and €2,500 in costs.

Natasha Lia had been 43 at the time that her request for further fertility treatment was turned down.

After two years of unsuccessful attempts at having children, Lia and her husband Gilbert were advised by doctors to attempt in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

The couple opted to try Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), offered free of charge by the government at a private clinic, as they satisfied the criteria established by Malta’s Embryo Protection Authority.

The procedure proved unsuccessful and the couple’s request for another cycle of treatment was refused by the authority. At the time of the second request, the couple’s ages fell outside the 25 to 42 age bracket which had been endorsed by Malta.

The couple’s lawyer, Matthew Paris, submitted that in refusing their request, the State had breached their right to family life, as well as the right not to be discriminated against. He pointed out that the couple fulfilled the other two criteria for funding, as they were married and had received medical advice informing them that they had reasonable prospects of success.

The couple had attempted IVF treatment abroad but had been forced to stop it due to the massive expense involved. A constitutional case they subsequently filed in Malta was also dismissed in 2019.

A case was then filed before the ECHR in Strasbourg by the couple, who claimed that the State had breached their right to private and family life, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In its decision, the ECHR ruled that the State’s decision to deny the applicants access to IVF procedures which were available to the population and which they sought to pay for themselves, constituted interference in the applicant's rights, concluding that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.