A woman who was left infertile after cancer treatment lost her last legal chance to use her frozen embryos after a court ruling today.

The 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European court of human rights ruled that Natallie Evans, who underwent IVF as she fought ovarian cancer, could not force the embryos to be used against the wishes of her former partner, Howard Johnston.

The judges, by a majority of 13 to four, found that Ms Evans' right to have a family life - article eight of the European convention on human rights - had not been violated.

The court also ruled unanimously that the embryo had no right to life under article two or, by a 13-4 majority, that Ms Evans was not being discriminated against under article 14.

In a statement, 34-year-old Ms Evans, of Melksham, Wiltshire, said she was "distraught" at the court's decision.

"It's very hard for me to accept that the embryos will now be destroyed and that I will never become a mother. I would ask Howard to consider whether he could ever permit me to have the children I so dearly long for, and which he was happy to consent to when the procedure took place to create these embryos," she said.

Mr Johnston, 30, said the latest decision was a "big relief", adding that "common sense has prevailed". He told a news conference he wanted to be able to choose when to start a family.

In a ruling that referred to "great sympathy" for Ms Evans in a "morally and ethically difficult case", the judges noted that she was not complaining that she could not become a mother by adoption.

It said each person's interest was entirely irreconcilable with the other's, meaning that, whatever the outcome, one party would be "wholly frustrated".

The ruling said the judges did not consider that Ms Evans' "right to respect for the decision to become a parent in the genetic sense should be accorded greater weight" than her former partner's decision not to have a child with her.

The judges heard that she began IVF treatment with Mr Johnston in 2001 after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, the treatment for which would leave her infertile.

When the couple split up, he withdrew consent for her to use the six frozen embryos, which had been fertilised with his sperm.

Ms Evans applied to the high court, arguing that he had already consented to the creation, storage and use of the embryos, and should not be allowed to change his mind.

Her case was dismissed by the court, and later by the court of appeal. The House of Lords - the last legal resort in the UK - would not consider it.

Having been ordered by British courts to destroy the embryos, Ms Evans turned to Strasbourg, arguing that refusing to allow her to use them breached the human rights convention, which guarantees the "right to family life".

Her lawyers said it also breached discrimination laws because the fate of the embryos was being determined entirely by her partner. Current IVF law - the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act - requires consent from both man and woman at every stage of the IVF process.

Mr Johnston denied suggestions that he had changed his mind over allowing Ms Evans to use the embryos. He said: "The treatment we embarked on was based on what we wanted at the time. We have since split up, so I wouldn't chose to have a child with her now. I would never had thought someone would want children with me even though we're not together."

He said he also objected to having "no input into the upbringing".

Ms Evans' solicitor, Muiris Lyons, said: "Natallie has shown great courage and determination throughout this battle. All she has ever asked for is the chance to use her embryos to bring her own child into the world.

"This was her last chance to become a mother and it now appears likely that, unless Mr Johnston changes his mind, the embryos will be destroyed."

Dr Allan Pacey, the secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "To freeze embryos is currently the only realistic way that many women can preserve their fertility before embarking on cancer treatment.

"As in many countries, the UK has clearly established principles of shared responsibility from both the sperm and egg provider concerning the fate of any frozen embryos up until the point that they are transferred back into a woman.

"This will have been explained to Natallie and her partner at the time their embryos were created and the BFS considers that it is only fair to Mr Johnston that this principle has been upheld."

Mr Johnston said said that the decision taken by himself and Ms Evans to go for IVF was taken "in about an hour" after she found out she had ovarian cancer. He said today's result would give other couples the confidence that both parties had to consent to an embryo's use.

Anna Smajdor, a researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College, London, said Britain was "obsessed with the idea that shared genes are the essence of parenthood".

"Ms Evans' ex-partner does not want to be a father and this apparently gives him the right to destroy these embryos simply because they contain some of his genes," she added.

"There is something deeply amiss here. Ms Evans is not allowed to have her embryos implanted without her ex's consent, yet he - effectively - is allowed to have them destroyed without hers."

Dr Simon Fishel, the managing director of the Care fertility group, said: "The latest legal ruling for the requirement of the consent of both partners involved in bringing into existence an embryo makes paramount the welfare of any future child. This has to be the right and sensible decision."

Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, said the organisation had "every sympathy for Natallie Evans, and understand why she has challenged the law".

He added: "However, we welcome the fact that the European court has supported the principle of consent from all parties. Having a child is a lifelong undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed."

Mr Johnston said that "if the circumstances were right" and he was with the right person, he would "definitely" want children, but added that he was "not with anyone at the moment".

He said he could understand if people considered him "heartless" because of the emotional side of the case. He said that he had not spoken to his former girlfriend for five years, but said he sympathised with her position and hoped she would find happiness. "Hopefully, Natallie will have children, even though they will not be genetically hers."