Spain’s Supreme Court has delivered a ruling establishing that direct family members have the legal standing to challenge administrative decisions granting euthanasia, provided they can prove a legitimate personal interest.

The full panel of the court’s Third Chamber rejected an appeal by the regional government of Catalonia, which had argued that relatives should not be permitted to contest state-approved assisted dying.

The 66-page judgment follows the case of Noelia Castillo, a 25-year-old Catalan woman whose assisted death became the first to be contested in the Spanish courts.

The majority ruling outlines several strict criteria for future cases, determining that parents are entitled to appeal against a resolution granting the Right to Assisted Dying if certain requirements are met.

Appellants must demonstrate a close and active emotional connection within the applicant’s immediate domestic circle, and they must provide reasonable evidence that legal safeguards were breached, such as flaws in consent or a lack of mental capacity.

Aligning with Constitutional Court doctrine, the judges ruled that state-approved euthanasia cannot be exempt from judicial oversight, meaning administrative bodies do not have the final word on irreversible decisions.

The court held that a family's interest is protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which governs the right to respect for private and family life. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the Catalan government's appeal on the grounds that a lower court had rejected the father's original case prematurely, without allowing an initial evidentiary phase to assess the daughter's capacity.

The decision was passed by a majority of the 32-magistrate panel, but it drew a sharp dissenting opinion from nine judges led by Magistrate José Manuel Bandrés.

The dissenting minority argued that euthanasia is a strictly personal, individual, and non-transferable right rooted entirely in human dignity and autonomy. They warned that allowing third parties to challenge a conscious decision constitutes an illegitimate intrusion into an individual's privacy, adding that neither the Spanish Constitution nor current legislation supports legal standing based purely on emotion or family affection.

Furthermore, the dissenting magistrates cautioned that the judicialisation of these choices risks creating inhumane treatment, warning that legal delays could cause intolerable physical and mental suffering and turn a dignified death into an agonising process for the applicant.