Remaining Cases Issues and Ruling

Case Issue Ruling

Niemietz v. Germany 1992 ● W/N there was a violation in Article 8 ● Holds that there has been a violation
“Right to Family Life and of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Correspondence” ● Holds that no separate issue arises
● W/N there was a violation in Article 1 under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Right to enjoy personal possessions” (P1-1);
● W/V Niemetz is subjected to Article ● Dismisses the applicant’s claim for
50 just satisfaction just satisfaction

ABC and V v. Ireland 2010 Three Applicants On Government’s Effective Remedies (Art.
● All three applicants complained that 13)
the restrictions on abortion in Ireland ● The Government argued that there
constituted treatment which breached were effective remedies at the
Article 3 of the Convention. applicants’ disposal.
● The applicants also complained under ● The Court notes that, just as for the
Article 13 of the Convention, arguing first and second applicants, there was
that they had no effective domestic no legal impediment to the third
remedy as regards their complaints applicant traveling abroad for an
under Articles 8 and 14. The abortion.
Government maintained that they had ● The Court notes that Article 13
effective remedies available to them. applies where an individual has an
● The applicants also complained that “arguable claim” that he or she has
the above-described restrictions and been the victim of a violation of a
limitations on lawful abortion in Convention and that complaints
Ireland were discriminatory and in declared admissible, in the present
breach of Article 14 of the case Articles 8 and 14, are considered
Convention taken in conjunction with “arguable”
Article 8 in that they placed an
excessive burden on them as women
and, in particular, on the first
applicant as an impoverished woman.
Third Applicant Complaints
● The third applicant complained under ● Since this complaint does not
Article 2 that abortion was not therefore give rise to an “arguable
available in Ireland even in a claim” of a breach of the Convention,
life-threatening situation because of their associated complaint under
the failure to implement Article 40.3.3 Article 13 of the Convention must
of the Constitution. also be rejected as manifestly
● The third applicant feared her ill-founded.
pregnancy constituted a risk to her life On Article 3 Inhumane Treatments
and complained under Article 8 about ● The Court reiterates its case-law to
the lack of legislation implementing the effect that ill‑treatment must attain
the constitutional right to an abortion a minimum level of severity if it is to
in the case of such a risk. She argued fall within the scope of Article 3. The
that she therefore had no effective assessment of this minimum depends
procedure by which to establish her on all the circumstances of the case.
eligibility for a lawful abortion in On Article 14 Discrimination on the Basis of
Ireland and that she should not be Sex
required to litigate to do so. ● The Court does not consider it
necessary to examine the applicants’
complaints separately under Article
14 of the Convention
On Article 2 Right of Life
● The Government argued that no issue
arose under Article 2 of the
Convention.
● Accordingly, the Court dismisses the
Government’s objection on the
ground of a failure to exhaust
domestic remedies as regards the first
and second applicants and joins this
objection to the merits of the third
applicant’s complaint under Article 8
of the Convention.
On Article 8 Right to Private Life and
Correspondence
● While Article 8 cannot, accordingly,
be interpreted as conferring a right to
abortion, the Court finds that the
prohibition in Ireland of abortion
where sought for reasons of health
and/or well-being about which the
first and second applicants
complained, and the third applicant’s
alleged inability to establish her
eligibility for a lawful abortion in
Ireland, come within the scope of
their right to respect for their private
lives and accordingly Article 8.
● Dismisses unanimously the
Government’s objection as to a failure
to exhaust domestic remedies as
regards the first and second applicants
and joins this objection to the merits
of the third applicant’s complaint
under Article 8 of the Convention
● Accordingly, the Court concludes that
it has not been demonstrated that an
action by the first and second
applicants seeking a declaration of a
constitutional entitlement to an
abortion in Ireland on health and/or
well-being grounds and, consequently,
of the unconstitutionality of sections
58 and 59 of the 1961 Act, would
have had any prospect of success. It is
not therefore an effective remedy
available both in theory and in
practice which the first and second
applicants were required to exhaust
(see paragraph 142 above).
Dudgeon v. UK 1981 ● W/N there was a violation on Article On Article 8
8 Right to Private Life ● Mr. Dudgeon has suffered and
● W/N there was a breach in Article 14 continues to suffer an unjustified
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, in interference with his right to respect
conjunction with Article 8 (The for his private life. There is
applicant claimed to be a victim of accordingly a breach of Article 8
discrimination in breach of Article 14 On Article 14
taken in conjunction with Article 8 ● This aspect of the applicant’s
(art. 14+8), in that he is subject under complaint under Article 14 (art. 14)
the criminal law complained of to amounts in effect to the same
greater interference with his private complaint, albeit seen from a different
life than are male homosexuals in angle, that the Court has already
other parts of the United Kingdom considered in relation to Article 8 (art.
and heterosexuals and female 8); there is no call to rule on the
homosexuals in Northern Ireland merits of a particular issue which is
itself) part of and absorbed by a wider issue
Additional Conclusions
● He is prevented from having sexual
relations with young males under 21
years of age, be justified as necessary
for the protection of the rights of
others
● The Court has already acknowledged
the legitimate necessity in a
democratic society for some degree of
control over homosexual conduct
notably in order to provide safeguards
against the exploitation and
corruption of those who are specially
vulnerable by reason, for example, of
their youth.
Explanation:
 ● Moreover, the police investigation in
January 1976 was, in relation to the
legislation in question, a specific
measure of implementation - albeit
short of actual prosecution - which
directly affected the applicant in the
enjoyment of his right to respect for
his private life (see paragraph 33
above). As such, it showed that the
threat hanging over him was real.

Laskey and others v. UK 1997 ● The applicants contended that their ● Holds that there has been no violation
prosecution and convictions for of Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).
assault and wounding in the course of Explanation
consensual sado-masochistic activities ● The State was moreover entitled to
between adults was in breach of prohibit activities because of their
Article 8 “interference by a public potential danger.
authority” ● The Government further contended
● The applicants maintained that the that the criminal law should seek to
interference in the issue could not be deter certain forms of behavior on
regarded as "necessary in a public-health grounds but also for
democratic society". broader moral reasons
● In support of their submission, the ● The State authorities therefore acted
applicants alleged that all those within their margin of appreciation in
involved in the sado-masochistic order to protect its citizens from real
encounters were willing adult risk of serious physical harm or
participants; injury.
● The applicants submitted that their ● The determination of the level of
case should be viewed as one harm that should be tolerated by the
involving matters of sexual law in situations where the victim
expression, rather than violence consents is in the first instance a
● The applicants submitted that they matter for the State
were being criminalized because they
were homosexuals.
 ● The Court finds that the national
authorities were entitled to consider
that the prosecution and conviction of
the applicants were necessary in a
democratic society for the protection
of health

Sahin v. Turkey 2005 ● W/N there was a violation of Article 9 ● The Court has frequently emphasised
Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and the State’s role as the neutral and
Religion impartial organiser of the exercise of
● W/N there was a violation of Article 2 various religions, faiths and beliefs,
Protocol No. 1 Right to Education and stated that this role is conducive
● W/N there was a violation on Articles to public order, religious harmony and
8 Right to Life, 10 Freedom of tolerance in a democratic society.
Expression, 14 Discrimination ● Although the provision makes no
mention of higher education, there is
nothing to suggest that it does not
apply to all levels of education,
including higher education.
● In spite of its importance, this right is
not, however, absolute, but may be
subject to limitations;
● The right to education does not in
principle exclude recourse to
disciplinary measures, including
suspension or expulsion from an
educational institution in order to
ensure compliance with its internal
rules.
 ● The Court, however, does not find any
violation of Articles 8 or 10 of the
Convention, the arguments advanced
by the applicant being a mere
reformulation of her complaint under
Article 9 of the Convention and
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, in respect
of which the Court has concluded that
there has been no violation.
● The regulations on the Islamic
headscarf were not directed against
the applicant’s religious affiliation,
but pursued, among other things, the
legitimate aim of protecting order and
the rights and freedoms of others and
were manifestly intended to preserve
the secular nature of educational
institutions

Eweida and Others v. UK 2013 ● The first, second and fourth applicants ● Declares unanimously the second
complained that the sanctions they applicant’s complaint about direct
suffered at work breached their rights discrimination inadmissible and the
under Article 9 of the Convention, remainder of all four applications
taken alone or in conjunction with admissible
Article 14. ● There has been a violation of Article 9
● The third applicant complained of a of the Convention in respect of the
breach of Articles 14 and 9 taken first applicant and that it is not
together necessary to examine separately her
complaint under Article 14 taken in
conjunction with Article 9
● There has been no violation of Article
9, taken alone or in conjunction with
Article 14, in respect of the second
applicant
 ● There has been no violation of Article
14 taken in conjunction with Article 9
in respect of the third applicant;
● Holds unanimously that there has
been no violation of Article 9, taken
alone or in conjunction with Article
14, in respect of the fourth applicant
● The respondent State is to pay the first
applicant, within three months from
the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 2,000 (non pecuniary damage)
● State is to pay the first applicant,
within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 30,000 (thirty
thousand euros) in respect of costs
and expenses
Explanation
● There was no evidence that the
wearing of other, previously
authorised, items of religious
clothing, such as turbans and hijabs,
by other employees, had any negative
impact on British Airways’ brand or
image.
● Moreover, the fact that the company
was able to amend the uniform code
to allow for the visible wearing of
religious symbolic jewellery
demonstrates that the earlier
prohibition was not of crucial
importance.
 ● The Court therefore concludes that, in
these circumstances where there is no
evidence of any real encroachment on
the interests of others, the domestic
authorities failed sufficiently to
protect the first applicant’s right to
manifest her religion, in breach of the
positive obligation under Article 9.

Folgero and others v. Norway 2007 ● Violation Of Article 14 Of The ● That there has been a violation of
Convention Taken In Conjunction Article 2 of Protocol No. 1;
With Articles 8 And 9 And Article 2 ● It is not necessary to examine the
Of Protocol No. 1 applicants’ complaint under Article
● The applicant parents complained 14 of the Convention taken in
under both Article 9 of the conjunction with Articles 8 and 9 and
Convention and the second sentence Article 2 of Protocol No. 1;
of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 on ● The finding of a violation constitutes
account of the refusals by the in itself sufficient just satisfaction for
domestic authorities to grant their the non-pecuniary damage sustained
children full exemption from the by the applicants;
compulsory KRL subject dealing with ● (a) that the respondent State is to pay
Christianity, religion and philosophy the applicants jointly, within three
taught during the ten-year compulsory months, EUR 70,000 (seventy
schooling in Norway. thousand euros) in respect of costs
● The applicants maintained that the and expenses, to be converted into the
KRL subject was neither objective, national currency of the respondent
nor critical nor pluralistic for the State at the rate applicable at the date
purposes of the criteria established by of settlement; (b) that from the expiry
the Court in its interpretation of of the above-mentioned three months
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 until settlement simple interest shall
be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate
of the European Central Bank during
the default period plus three
percentage points;
 ● Dismisses unanimously the remainder
of the applicants’ claim for just
satisfaction.
Explanation:
● the Court finds that the system of
partial exemption was capable of
subjecting the parents concerned to a
heavy burden with a risk of undue
exposure of their private life and that
the potential for conflict was likely to
deter them from making such
requests.
● Against this background,
notwithstanding the many laudable
legislative purposes stated in
connection with the introduction of
the KRL subject in the ordinary
primary and lower secondary schools,
it does not appear that the respondent
State took sufficient care that
information and knowledge included
in the curriculum be conveyed in an
objective, critical and pluralistic
manner for the purposes of Article 2
of Protocol No. 1.
● Accordingly, the Court finds that the
refusal to grant the applicant parents
full exemption from the KRL subject
for their children gave rise to a
violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.
1.

Lautsi and Others v. Italy 2011 ● Alleged Violation Of Article 2 Of ● That there has been no violation of
Protocol No. 1 And Article 9 Of The Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and that no
Convention separate issue arises under Article 9
of the Convention;
 ● The applicants argued that the ● There is no cause to examine the
Government had violated arts 2 and 9 complaint under Article 14 of the
of the European of Human Rights. Convention.
Article 2 protects the right to ● In that connection, it is true that by
education, including a parent’s right prescribing the presence of crucifixes
to ensure that their children are in State-school classrooms – a sign
educated in conformity with their own which, whether or not it is accorded in
convictions. addition a secular symbolic value,
● infringes the principle of educational undoubtedly refers to Christianity –
pluralism by expressing a preference the regulations confer on the country's
for a particular religion; majority religion preponderant
● inhibits the development of critical visibility in the school environment.
judgment; and That is not in itself sufficient,
● disregards the State’s obligation to however, to denote a process of
protect minors against indoctrination. indoctrination on the respondent
State's part and establish a breach of
the requirements of Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1.
● a crucifix on a wall is an essentially
passive symbol and this point is of
importance in the Court's view,
particularly having regard to the
principle of neutrality
● the Italian school environment was
open to other religions.

Castells v. Spain 1992 ● ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ● There has been a violation of Article
ARTICLE 10 (art. 10) 10 (art. 10);
● ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ● It is not necessary to consider the case
ARTICLE 14 IN CONJUNCTION also under Article 14, taken together
WITH ARTICLE 10 (art. 14+10) with Article 10 (art. 14+10);
● Regards the non-pecuniary damage
alleged, the present judgment
constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
for the purposes of Article 50 (art.
50);
 ● The Kingdom of Spain is to pay to the
applicant, within three months,
3,000,000 (three million) pesetas for
costs and expenses
Explanation
● Freedom of the press affords the
public one of the best means of
discovering and forming an opinion of
the ideas and attitudes of their
political leaders. In particular, it gives
politicians the opportunity to reflect
and comment on the preoccupations
of public opinion; it thus enables
everyone to participate in the free
political debate which is at the very
core of the concept of a democratic
society
● The freedom of political debate is
undoubtedly not absolute in nature.
However, the limits of permissible
criticism are wider with regard to the
Government than in relation to a
private citizen, or even a politician. In
a democratic system the actions or
omissions of the Government must be
subject to the close scrutiny not only
of the legislative and judicial
authorities but also of the press and
public opinion.

Von Hannover v. Germany 2004 ● Violation Of Article 8 ● No violation in Article 8

● Violation of Article 10
● The applicants alleged that the refusal ● The Court notes, moreover, as pointed
by the German courts to grant an out by the Federal Court of Justice,
injunction against any further that the photos of the applicants in the
publication of photos of them middle of a street in St Moritz in
infringed their right to respect for winter were not in themselves
their private life as guaranteed by offensive to the point of justifying
Article 8 of the Convention their prohibition.
● Relying on the Court’s judgment in ● The Court observes that the Federal
the first applicant’s case, the Court of Justice concluded that the
applicants subsequently brought applicants had not adduced evidence
several sets of proceedings in the civil of unfavourable circumstances in that
courts seeking an injunction against connection and that there was nothing
any further publication of photos that to indicate that the photos had been
had appeared in German magazines. taken surreptitiously or by equivalent
secret means such as to render their
publication illegal. The Federal
Constitutional Court, for its part,
stated that the publishing company
concerned had provided details of
how the photo that had appeared in
the Frau im Spiegel magazine had
been taken, but that the first applicant
had neither complained before the
civil courts that those details were
inadequate nor submitted that the
photo in question had been taken in
conditions that were unfavourable to
her.
 ● The Court also observes that the
Federal Constitutional Court stated in
its judgment that where an article was
merely a pretext for publishing a
photo of a prominent person, no
contribution was thereby made to the
formation of public opinion and there
were therefore no grounds for
allowing the interest in publication to
prevail over the protection of
personality rights.
● Admittedly, the Federal Court of
Justice based its reasoning on the
premise that the applicants were
well-known public figures who
particularly attracted public attention,
without going into their reasons for
reaching that conclusion.

Vedjeland v. Sweden 2012 ● ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ● there has been no violation of Article
ARTICLE 10 OF THE 10
CONVENTION
● the applicants maintained that their
conviction constituted an unjustified
interference with their right to
freedom of expression under Article
10
● in the applicants’ view, the text in the
leaflets was not disparaging or
insulting to homosexuals and hence
could not justify a restriction of their
right to freedom of expression
pursuant to Article 10 § 2.
● The applicants contended that the ● The Court notes that the applicants
wording in the leaflets was not hateful distributed the leaflets with the aim of
and did not encourage anyone to starting a debate about the lack of
commit hateful acts. In their view, the objectivity of education in Swedish
leaflets rather encouraged the pupils schools. The Court agrees with the
to discuss certain matters with their Supreme Court that even if this is an
teachers and provided them with acceptable purpose, regard must be
arguments to use in these discussions. paid to the wording of the leaflets.
● ALLEGED VIOLATION OF The Court observes that, according to
ARTICLE 7 OF THE the leaflets, homosexuality was “a
CONVENTION deviant sexual proclivity” that had “a
morally destructive effect on the
substance of society”. The leaflets
also alleged that homosexuality was
one of the main reasons why HIV and
AIDS had gained a foothold and that
the “homosexual lobby” tried to play
down paedophilia. In the Court’s
opinion, although these statements did
not directly recommend individuals to
commit hateful acts, they are serious
and prejudicial allegations.
Garaudy v. France 2003 ● Violation on Article 6 Right to Fair ● Furthermore, the Court does not see
Trial any other factor by which it can be
● Violation on Article 7 No Punishment established that the applicant's right to
No Law a fair trial within the meaning of
● The applicant also stressed that the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was
media reporting of the domestic infringed. Indeed, the domestic courts
proceedings had taken place in a tense gave their ruling at the end of
and hostile environment. He adversarial proceedings during which
submitted that he had been the victim submissions were heard in respect of
of a smear campaign and trial by the the various evidence adduced. The
press, which had set out to present applicant was able to challenge the
him as a revisionist. arguments submitted by the
prosecution and submit all the
observations and arguments that he
deemed necessary. The courts also
appear to have assessed the credibility
of the various evidence adduced
having regard to all the circumstances
of the cases and to have duly given
reasons for their decisions. The mere
fact that the applicant disagreed with
the courts' decisions does not suffice
to conclude that the proceedings were
unfair. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
 ● Assuming that the applicant did
exhaust domestic remedies in that
respect, the Court points out that there
is general recognition of the fact that
the courts cannot operate in a vacuum.
Whilst the courts are the only forum
for the determination of a person's
guilt or innocence on a criminal
charge, this does not mean that there
can be no prior or contemporaneous
discussion of the subject matter of
trials, be it in specialised journals, in
the general press or amongst the
public at large
● The Court notes that the applicant was
prosecuted for a book which had been
controversial from the time of its
publication, and that it could be
expected that a fierce debate would
surround the trial itself. In the Court's
opinion, however, the applicant has
not shown that a media campaign was
waged against him of such virulence
as to sway or be likely to sway the
judges' opinion and the outcome of
the deliberations. On the contrary, the
very length of the trial, which had
necessitated four days of hearings on
appeal, showed that the judges had
allowed each party to make their
submissions and had ruled objectively
after analysing the parties' arguments
and the relevant passages of the book
in question.

Otto-Preminger-Institute v. Austria 1994

 Konstantin Markin v. Russia 2012

Salguerio da Silva Mouta v. Portugal 1999

Shalk and Komp v. Austria 2010

M.W. v. UK 2009

Frette v. France 2002