Of course Brietta but the court didn't agree with Charlie's parents case so you point is moot IMO. They were given the indication that they could succeed by their lawyers, so they went to the ECHR and failed.
It seems that a significant proportion of claimants fail in the ECHR and from reading the ECHR court judgement I can see why there's was deemed inadmissible. Charlie Gard's parents case was deemed to be unusual so it went to the full panel of 7 judges.
THE EXAMINATION OF YOUR APPLICATION
1. Judicial formations
Once the Court is in possession of all the information it needs to
examine your case, your application will be allocated to one of the
Court’s judicial formations, depending on the type of case: a single
judge, a Committee or a Chamber.
¨ If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a
single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is
final and it will be communicated to you. It is not possible to
challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further
information about it. The Court will close the case and the file
will be destroyed at a later date.
¨ If your case is considered to be a repetitive case, which raises an
issue on which the Court has already ruled in a number of cases,
it will be handled by a Committee of 3 judges. In this case, a
letter explaining the procedure will be sent to you. Once again,
the Court will contact you if and when necessary.
¨ If your case is not considered to be a repetitive case, it will be
examined by a Chamber of 7 judges. The Chamber may still
declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will
be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the
merits of your complaint
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf
We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time. Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/charlie-gard-tragic-respect-courts____________________________________________________________________________________
"In truth, there are no winners here. One thing is for sure though."
Connie Yates ____________________________________________________________________________________
The European judges said it was “not for the court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities”. British court judgments in the case had been “meticulous”, the ECHR noted.
It said: “The domestic courts had concluded, on the basis of extensive, high-quality expert evidence, that it was most likely Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that undergoing experimental treatment with no prospects of success would offer no benefit, and continue to cause him significant harm.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/27/charlie-gard-european-court-rejects-plea-to-intervene-in-life-support-fight____________________________________________________________________________________
In Charlie's case the seven judges of the European Court considered and deliberated on the case brought before them on Charlie's behalf before pronouncing their judgement.
Which was to concur with the deliberations and conclusions of the judges of the English courts.
Had they found that the English courts had erred in the application of the law based on medical evidence as far as Charlie was concerned, in my opinion their ruling would have been different and just as legally binding.
Therefore Charlie's case was heard in Europe.
