Diane Pretty complained to the Court that the UK Suicide Act was in violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In its judgement of 29 April 2002 the European Court held that while the application was admissible, the prohibition of assisted suicide contained in the UK Suicide Act and the refusal to grant her husband immunity from prosecution if he assisted her in committing suicide were not in violation of the aforementioned Articles.

Mrs Pretty had argued that Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention granted her the right to self-determination as to the prolongation or termination of her own life. In the case of the terminally ill, who are no longer able to commit suicide themselves and who wish to avoid a painful death, this would include the possibility of third party assistance in the act of suicide. The Court conceded that the prohibition of assisted suicide according to the UK Suicide Act "might be thought to touch directly on the private lives of those who sought to commit suicide." However, with regard to the "prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" (Convention Section 8, §2) a relaxation of the legislation prohibiting assisted suicide would be disproportionate. According to the Court this applies especially to the UK legislation, which grants judges great flexibility in the determination of the sentence to be imposed in individual cases. Moreover, the Court stated that the refusal of the British courts to give an advance guarantee of immunity from prosecution for Mrs Pretty's husband was not disproportionate. Mrs Pretty died in a hospice on 11 May, 2002.