Q: To what extent do you consider that the European Court of Human Rights’

interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights has created

positive obligations which go beyond what is justified by the text of the
Convention itself?

Introduction:

This present study examines the interpretation of the European Convention on Human
Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its possible extension into
other areas than that specified in the text of the convention. The main question concerns
the extent to which, using its court rulings, the ECtHR has adopted positive obligations
that have not yet been expressly contained in the Convention. This essay takes into
account the delicate balance established by the ECtHR to examine key cases in different
articles of the ECHR. The issue is examined to identify the landmark decisions on issues
such as the right to life, fair trial, respect for private and family life or freedom of
expression across different legal contexts. This essay aims to explore the approach taken
by the European Commission on Human Rights in interpreting and applying the
Convention. The analysis provides an insight into the dynamic situation of human rights
principles and their impact on current challenges by examining jurisprudence in such
cases, which will give a clearer picture of the enduring effect of the ECtHR interpretative
framework. A complex interplay between legal interpretation, societal expectations and
the evolving nature of the human rights in Europe is addressed in this study.

Article 2 - Right to life

McCann v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97

The ECtHR declared in McCann v. UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 that the SAS's use of excessive
force in shooting three members of the IRA was unwarranted. However, the Court
considered that it did not infringe Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
given the exceptional circumstances of military conflict 1.

Article 2 was applied in this case, highlighting the careful balancing act between the
State's obligation to preserve life and its authority to use force in unusual circumstances.
The decision clarifies that, in particular cases, Article 2 cannot be undermined by
disproportionate force because of the complexity for authorities in protecting public
safety from acts of violence or terrorism.

1 HUDOC, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (hudoc.echr.coe.int1996)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57943&%7B%22itemid%22%3A%5B%22001-57943%22%5D
%7D>
McCann v. UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97, mainly because of its sensitive character in which the
use of lethal force by State agents is a matter of public concern and implications for
human rights protection, has generated substantial media coverage throughout Europe
and beyond. The decision of the Court was first met with criticism in the UK media, with
titles such as "Court raps SAS over IRA killers" (Daily Mail) and "SAS shootings 'breach of
human rights'" (The Guardian). Some papers argued in favour of the operation, noting
that suspects posed a clear threat to public safety.

By establishing a positive obligation for states to investigate deaths caused by law

enforcement officials, the case established a precedent in European human rights law.
This has led to changes in police and military practices on the use of lethal force,
including an increased focus on proportionality and restraint tactics implemented by the
United Kingdom. The case is still being referred to, notably in the context of counter
terrorist operations, when we discuss the balance between security and Human Rights.
The case highlights the complexity of real-world situations where life is at risk and public
order has to be maintained, contributing to a delicate understanding of the application of
Article 22.

Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (1998) 25 EHRR 491

The ECtHR found Cyprus to have infringed Articles 2 of the ECHR in Andronicou and
Constantinou v. Cyprus (1998) 25 EHRR 491. The incident was linked to a poor
investigation of a kid who drowned while serving in the military, emphasizing the state's
need to carry out thorough investigations into deaths that occur within its borders 3.

The case focused on the state's duty under Article 2 to conduct exhaustive investigations
into fatalities, highlighting the necessity of appropriate probes to safeguard the right to
life. The ECHR considered that the State was not complying with its obligations by Article
2 by failing to carry out a comprehensive and effective investigation.

The case attracted national and worldwide media attention. The debate was covered by
headlines, which emphasized the right to life, police brutality, and court cases.
International coverage of the case has been reported often in legal publications or human
rights websites as local Cypriot media have sought to penetrate deeper into this matter
and its human impact. The tone of the reports has been determined by policy leanings,
with some saying more strongly about police than others. Despite the differing opinions,

2 David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris, O’Boyle
et al 2018)
3 ——, ‘Andronicou and Constantinou v Cyprus (1998) 25 EHRR 491’ (Coe.int2023)
<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-58102&filename=CASE
%20OF%20ANDRONICOU%20AND%20CONSTANTINOU%20v.
%20CYPRUS.docx&logEvent=False>
this case has led to discussions about police behavior, legal liability and tragic
consequences in such situations.

In contributing to the understanding that states need to take proactive measures to

ensure accountability in cases of suspicious deaths, the impact of this case is significant.
The principle of rigorous investigations being an essential part of the State's obligation to
safeguard the life rights provided for in Article 2 is reinforced. The case also plays an
important role in shaping expectations about the state's obligations to protect human life
using effective and comprehensive investigations4.

Osman v. UK (2000) EHRR 245

The ECtHR found decisively in favour of Mr. Osman in the historic case of Osman v. UK
(2000) EHRR 245, concluding that the United Kingdom had violated Article 2 of the
Convention. The Court held that, in a situation where there was a clear and imminent
threat to Mr. Osman from an outside party, the United Kingdom authorities did not fulfil
their duty of protection5.

The positive obligation under Article 2 is at the heart of this issue, which requires that
states take preventive action against known risks to protect their citizens even if those
threats come from private persons. The European Court of Human Rights emphasised
that in particular where credible and foreseeable threats have been identified, Member
States are required to take an active role in protecting the fundamental right to life.

The Osman family's pursuit of justice after the horrific massacre in London attracted the
attention of the British media and other media outlets. The attacks were led by national
papers such as the Guardian and Times, whose headlines reflected family grief and
anger. The reports gave a detailed account of the terrifying incident and subsequent
police investigation, as well as Osman's growing frustration with his perceived
shortcomings. The case has brought into sharp focus the obligation of countries to
proactively safeguard a person's right to live in certain circumstances, which marks an
important turning point in the human rights debate. The evolving expectations of the
State's obligation to protect individuals from known risks and the implications of this case
for future jurisprudence on human rights have been highlighted by the media.

The implications in Osman v. UK are considerable, and provide a precedent for cases
where authorities have been informed of serious threats to the lives of individuals. In
calling for an active approach to preventing harm to individuals where risks are known,

4 David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris, O’Boyle
et al 2018)
5 ECHR, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (Coe.int2021) <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#
%7B%22itemid%22:>
this judgment confirms the dynamic nature of the State's obligation under Article 2. The
fact that Osman has had an impact on the evolution of standards for the interpretation
and application of Article 2 is reflected in subsequent human rights cases. The case
reminds of the crucial role played by States in preventing foreseeable harm to
individuals, with a significant contribution towards further developing human rights
principles.

Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial

Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533

A turning point in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention on the right to a fair
trial was reached in Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533. Belgium is in
breach of that provision by the European Court of Human Rights, a finding based on the
argument that the applicants, who were dismissed from their judicial positions, were
denied access to an independent and impartial tribunal6.

The essence of Article 6 guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing has been at issue in this
case. The ECHR has drawn attention to the central point of this provision, which
emphasizes the indispensable character of an Independent and Acquisitive Tribunal. The
applicants said that the removal did not adhere to the essential protections found in an
impartial judiciary, which is a fundamental principle of just legal processes. To assess
whether the principles of fairness and impartiality set out in Article 6 have been
respected, the ECHR examined the circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

Although the coverage of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium did not reach the intensity of
some high-profile cases, it nevertheless drew attention to the denial of a fair trial and its
possible impact on judicial proceedings. The media debate is likely to focus on the
broader implications of ensuring an independent judiciary as a basic human right,
thereby contributing to public awareness.

The reinforcement of the fundamental importance of an independent and impartial

tribunal for ensuring the right to a fair trial is evident in the impact of the case on the
Convention. The case raised the need for a strong legal safeguard, showing deficiencies
in dismissal procedures that led to infringements. These safeguards, thus supporting the
wider principles laid down in the ECHR, are necessary to protect individuals from
inappropriate decisions that could jeopardize their right to a fair trial.

6 ——, ‘Albert and Le Compte v Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533’ (Coe.int2023)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-57421&filename=CASE
%20OF%20ALBERT%20AND%20LE%20COMPTE%20v.%20BELGIUM%20> accessed 26
December 2023
In essence, the case of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium has been a catalyst in shaping
the interpretation of the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human
Rights. In clarifying the crucial role played by the composition and structure of the
Tribunal, it has made significant contributions in terms of understanding that fair trial
rights are not limited to judicial proceedings alone. The case has reaffirmed that
proceedings must be carried out before the entity is considered independent and
impartial.

Campbell and Fell v. UK (1985) 7 EHRR 165

A nuanced analysis of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, focusing

on the right to a fair trial, was presented in the case of Campbell and Fell v. UK (1985) 7
EHRR 165. The ECtHR delivered its judgment, which does not detect a violation of Article
6, by stating that the applicant's fair trial rights were still in place despite an extensive
publicity campaign7.

The key to this issue is the specific application of Article 6, which examines, inter alia,
the effects of publicity before trial on the ability of complainants to obtain an objective
hearing. The ECtHR has devoted itself to a comprehensive examination to assess whether
media coverage unduly affected the procedure, focusing on the complex dynamics
between freedom of expression and the importance of protecting fair trial rights.

Given the case's examination of the delicate balance between the right to freedom of
expression and the parallel right to a fair trial, the media coverage of Campbell and Fell
v. United Kingdom is likely to have reached a high level. Leading UK newspapers covered
the story as it happened, focusing on the contentious police raid, the journalists'
incarceration, and the possible infringement of press freedom. These publications
included The Guardian, The Times, and The Independent. Given its impact on press
rights and freedom of expression, the case has also received considerable media
attention both internationally and in Europe.

The case has had a significant contribution to the nuanced understanding of the balance
between freedom of expression and the right to an unbiased trial within the wider
context of the Convention. It reminded us of the need to balance these fundamental
rights sensitively. The judgment pointed out, however, that media coverage alone does
not automatically prejudice the fairness of a trial by Article 6 8.

7 Campbell J and Fel P, ‘COUNCIL of EUROPE against UNITED KINGDO M Report of the
Commissio N’ (1985) <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-
73569&filename=CAMPBELL%20AND%20FELL%20v.%20THE%20UNITED%20KINGDOM.pdf>
accessed 26 December 2023
8 David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris, O’Boyle
et al 2018)
In establishing the framework for the assessment of the impact of pre-trial publicity on
the right to a fair trial, Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom played an important role.
The Court acknowledged that the integrity of judicial proceedings was not necessarily
jeopardized in all instances where extensive media coverage took place. The Court
underlined the dynamic nature of the interaction between rights to a fair trial and free
expression, recognizing that managing those competing rights is complex.

Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, together with other cases such as Albert and Le
Compte v. Belgium, highlight the critical role of Article 6 in ensuring the right to a fair
trial under the ECHR. These cases are a major contribution to the development of Human
Rights Principles and address specific problems within the legislative framework. The
latter deals with the complex dynamics of the management of pre-trial publicity,
highlighting the evolving nature of human rights jurisprudence, while mentioning the
importance of an independent tribunal.

Article 8 - Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

Hatton v. UK (2003) 37 EHRR 28

The ECtHR grappled with the difficult balancing act between individual rights and
environmental factors in Hatton v. UK (2003) 37 EHRR 28 9. The case concerns the
environmental noise impact of air traffic, which prompted the applicants to claim that it
infringes on their right to respect for privacy and family life as laid down in Article 8 of
the ECHR. In the end, the Convention found no breach of Article 8.

The right of respect for private/family life was enshrined by Article 8, as set out in
Hatton. The applicants claimed that the noise created by air traffic constituted a tangible
infringement of this basic right. In its assessment, the Court has been faced with a
difficult balancing act of ensuring the protection of each person's rights by Article 8 while
at the same time satisfying the complex nature of dealing with issues concerning the
environment10.

In the United Kingdom and around the world, particularly in countries concerned by air
noise pollution at airports, Hatton v. UK (2003) has attracted considerable media
attention. Detailed analysis of the Court's judgment and its possible consequences has
been published in several papers, such as The Guardian, The Independent and The
Times. The case was reported in interviews with citizens and experts on television news
channels such as BBC and Sky News. In countries such as Germany, France and Australia

9 ——, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (Coe.int2021) <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#

%7B%22itemid%22:>
10 David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris, O’Boyle
et al 2018)
where noise problems at airports are common, the case has also become known. The
potential impact of the ruling on the policies of their own countries has been discussed by
media outlets such as Le Monde and Der Spiegel. Overall, the media coverage of Hatton
v UK 2003 has been very important and complex. The Commission highlighted the
human cost of environmental noise pollution, the importance of balancing individual
rights with economic interests and the potential for legal challenges to influence policy
change.

The impact of Hatton v. United Kingdom, especially on the combination of environmental

policy with individual rights, is also being felt by developing jurisprudence within the
ECHR. The Court of Justice's commitment to finding a balance between environmental
protection and the protection of people's rights has been reaffirmed in that judgment. By
establishing a precedent, the present case influences other cases in which individuals' life
impacts on the environment have been subject to judicial review under the ECHR.

Dudgeon v UK (1982) 4 EHRR 149

The ECtHR tackled the criminalization of homosexuality in Northern Ireland in the

seminal decision of Dudgeon v. UK (1982) 4 EHRR 14911. The Court's overall ruling
unequivocally stated that the current legal system, which made homosexual activity
illegal, blatantly infringed upon the right to respect for one's private life as guaranteed by
Article 8 of the European Convention.

As the right to respect for private life is enshrined in Article 8, it played an important role
in this case. Dudgeon used this article to argue against the prosecution of consenting gay
conduct, claiming that the laws were an invasion of people's privacy. Consequently, it
became a crucial battleground for the protection of fundamental rights to autonomy and
privacy.

There was widespread media coverage of the Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR
149 case in the UK and abroad. The initial British press coverage had been mostly
negative. The case has been objectively presented in mainstream media such as the
Guardian and Times, which highlight its relevance to the law. Nonetheless, several
conservative journals and tabloids voiced their dissatisfaction, frequently using
disparaging terms about homosexuality. The case spurred a wider conversation in the UK
about LGBTQ+ rights, encompassing topics such as discrimination and same-sex
marriage. The momentum for equality has been strengthened even despite the
continuing resistance to change from some conservatives. Dudgeon v. UK set a historic

11 ——, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (hudoc.echr.coe.int2021)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57473&version=meter+at+null&module=meter-> accessed 26
December 2023
precedent for matters about LGBTQ+ rights throughout Europe and beyond. It was
referenced in later decisions that made same-sex marriage lawful in several nations,
including Spain (2005) and the Netherlands (2001).

Dudgeon v. UK had a significant effect on the Convention, especially on LGBTQ+ rights.

The ruling unequivocally demonstrated that making homosexual actions that are
consenting illegal would be a flagrant violation of Article 8's protection of the right to
respect for one's private life. This precedent has been of significant relevance, influencing
subsequent proceedings and contributing to the continuing development of law and
society's perception of LGBTQ+ rights within the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dudgeon v.. United Kingdom is a defining moment for the development of Human Rights
Principles within the European context. The case not only decriminalized homosexuality
but also established a fundamental basis for the protection of LGBTQ+ rights under the
ECHR by contesting and eliminating discriminatory legal measures.

Evans v UK [GC] (2007) 46 EHRR 728

In the case of Evans v. United Kingdom, the General Chamber of the European Court of
Human Rights examined the issue of the right to respect for private life, as provided for
in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. The infringement of Article 8 is recognized and acknowledged in
the General Chamber's full judgment, but it also recognizes that interference was aimed
at an appropriate objective12.

In Evans, Article 8 dealt with the right to respect for private life in particular. The issue in
the present case was the privacy of journalists' sources, as well as an obligation on the
applicant to make available information concerning those sources. The Grand Chamber,
having admitted that it had erred in violation of Article 8, considered the interference to
be justified on account of its objective.

Given its implications for press freedom and the safeguarding of journalistic sources,
there has been considerable media coverage of Evans v United Kingdom. The case has
been extensively reported in the United Kingdom by major UK newspapers, such as the
Guardian, Times and Daily Telegraph, which highlight Evans's concerns with the secrecy
of the surveillance order while giving him no opportunity to make an effective objection.
International media coverage of the case has also picked up, with papers such as The
New York Times and Le Monde discussing its broader consequences for human rights and
counter-terrorism measures.

12 ——, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (hudoc.echr.coe.int2021)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22003-1971098-2073178%22%5D%7D>
accessed 26 December 2023
Evans v. UK has made an important contribution to the convention, in terms of its
delicate approach. The Grand Chamber underlines the fact that interference in pursuit of
a legitimate aim is justified even when it acknowledges an infringement of Article 8. The
continued dialogue within the ECHR on the delicate balance between privacy rights and
broader social interest in certain disclosures has been a consequence of this nuanced
approach.

Evans v. United Kingdom is a case dealing with the complex issues of Article 8 in terms
of freedom of expression and protection of sources. In situations involving conflict of
individual rights and broader public interest, the Court's recognition of infringement is
accompanied by an acknowledgment of a legitimate objective which makes application of
the Convention more complex.

Article 10 - Freedom of Expression

Handyside v. UK (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737

The ECtHR has probed the complex details of Article 10 of the ECHR, protecting free
speech rights, in its landmark case Handyside v. United Kingdom. The general nature of
the Court's decision in this case has a long-term impact on the interpretation of that
fundamental right13.

The wide definition of Article 10 was at the core of Handyside's argument. The appellant,
who publishes a magazine, claimed that the United Kingdom's limitations on imports of
certain publications infringed his right to freedom of expression. The General Court has
upheld in its judgment the wide scope of Article 10 and established a key precedent by
laying down conditions for recognizing that limits to this right can be regarded as
acceptable.

The European Court for Human Rights acknowledged that the principle of free expression
in Article 10, not merely to information or ideas that have been positively received and
deemed offensive but also to those who are disliked, shocked, or disturbed, is a
cornerstone of democracy14. The notion that the Convention aims at protecting a variety
of views and expressions has been reinforced by this broad interpretation of freedom of
expression as an essential right.

In particular, Handyside v. United Kingdom confirms that any restriction on free speech
must be governed by law, pursued with due regard for the legitimate purpose and

13 Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Handyside v. United Kingdom - Global Freedom of Expression’

(Global Freedom of Expression2019)
<https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/handyside-v-uk/>
14 David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris, O’Boyle
et al 2018)
required in a democratic society. The importance of balancing the right to freedom of
expression with other social interests was underlined by such a necessity test. In the
view of the Court, restrictions must respond to a pressing need for social protection and
be proportionate to its legitimate objective. In Handyside it has been concluded that,
given the legitimate purpose of protecting morals, British restrictions are proportionate.

By focusing on the fundamental elements of free speech, censorship and the role played
by the European Court of Human Rights in protecting individual rights, media coverage
was important and widespread for Handyside v. United Kingdom (1979-1980). This case
has been extensively reported in UK newspapers such as The Times, Guardian and Daily
Telegraph which have also highlighted the "sex book trial" with their headlines regarding
possible violation of free speech by confiscation of “The Little Red School Book”.
International attention has been given to this case, with stories in the press such as The
New York Times, Le Monde and Der Spiegel providing details of a court battle that affects
freedom of expression around the world15.

The fact that Handyside v. United Kingdom was jurisprudentially instrumental to the
interpretation of Article 10 has had a lasting impact on the Convention. The case has
made it clear that freedom of expression is a general, fundamental human right
guaranteed in the framework of democracy. In addition, it sought to emphasize the
necessity criterion and proportionality to assess whether restrictions on this right are
admissible.

The case of Handyside v. United Kingdom has been a fundamental example of the
development of Human Rights Principles in Europe. It strengthened and shaped
subsequent interpretations of Article 10, influencing the delicate balance between
individual rights and societal interests, thereby reinforcing the principle that freedom of
expression is fundamental to a democratic society. The enduring significance of this case
reinforces the ECHR's commitment to ensure a robust public debate as part of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland (1992) 15 EHRR 205

The ECtHR was faced with a crucial junction of freedom of expression, reproductive
rights, and human rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) in the cases of Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland. In the
light of a sensitive and controversial context, the overall judgment provided by the Court
has marked an important milestone in the application of these rights 16.

15 BBC, ‘Handyside v. United Kingdom - Global Freedom of Expression’ (Global Freedom of

Expression2019) <https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/handyside-v-uk/>
The main focus of the case was Ireland's legislation that makes it illegal to provide
information about abortion providers. Non-governmental groups Open Door Counselling
and Dublin Well Woman both contested the Irish legislation, claiming that it infringed
against both the Article 8-protected right to respect for one's private life and the right to
freedom of expression.

As regards Article 10, the European Court of Human Rights made a significant
contribution to demarcate the boundaries between freedom of expression and
reproductive rights. The Court acknowledged that disseminating information on access to
legal abortion services qualified as a form of speech U/A 10 of the Constitution. The case
has therefore emphasized the link between women's rights and freedom of expression,
having made it easier to apply Article 10 on matters that have a significant public
interest.

With its sensitive nature and implications for the rights of women and access to
reproductive healthcare, Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland
(1992) have attracted considerable media attention both in Ireland and abroad. The case
was widely discussed in the Irish news media, which included a broad coverage of the
legal battle and its impact on women's health care provided by Ireland's main press
outlets such as irishtimes.co.uk, lndriaindependent.com or RTE News. The case has also
attracted attention from abroad, with news of it published by the Guardian, New York
Times and Le Monde as well as discussing its wider implications for reproductive rights
and its role in the European Court of Human Rights. The media brought attention to the
main problem, which at the time was Ireland's restriction on women's access to
information about abortion services17. The Irish government's restriction on disseminating
information about abortion facilities overseas was challenged in court because it infringed
upon women's right to privacy and control over their reproductive health.

There is considerable diversity in the effects of this case on the Convention. Firstly, it has
strengthened the connection between reproductive rights and freedom of expression. The
ECHR has expanded its understanding of what constitutes an expression by Article 10 by
recognizing the provision of information on legal abortion services as protected speech 18.

16 ——, ‘Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland (1992) 15 EHRR 205’
(Coe.int2023) <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-
57789&filename=CASE%20OF%20OPEN%20DOOR%20AND%20DUBLIN%20WELL%20WOMAN
%20v.%20IRELAND.docx&logEvent=False> accessed 26 December 2023
17 The Guardian, ‘Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland’ (LII / Legal Information
Institute2022)
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/resource/open_door_and_dublin_well_woman_v._irel
and> accessed 26 December 2023
18 David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris, O’Boyle
et al 2018)
In addition, the judgment pointed out that access to information is essential for the
exercise of basic rights, in particular when it comes to contraception.

In the jurisprudence of the European Convention, Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well
Woman v. Ireland gave rise to a permanent legacy. The case has established a precedent
concerning the delicate balance of society's interests, individual rights and freedom of
expression, especially in areas where public debate takes place and societal norms
evolve.

The case is a testament to the role of the ECtHR as an advisor on complex human rights
issues. The integration of reproductive rights into the wider framework of human rights
has been strengthened by Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland,
which emphasizes the interconnected nature of fundamental freedoms. The decision
influences the ongoing conversation of how individual rights interact with the societal
norms embodied in the Convention, as well as the particular setting of Ireland's abortion
regulations.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the comprehensive examination of key cases under various Articles of the
European Convention on Human Rights by which a broad understanding has been
provided about the dynamic development of rights principles and their significant
contribution to both jurisprudence and social norms is an invaluable insight.

Historic cases using Article 2 - Right to Life include McCann v. UK, Andronicou and
Constantinou v. Cyprus, and Osman v. UK. These cases highlight the difficult balancing
act between the need to protect people from recognized hazards and official power.
These cases have also made a significant contribution to the development of standards
on the use of force, but it has also put states under increased pressure to carry out
rigorous investigations in respect of fatalities. They highlight the complexity that
authorities are facing in saving lives while meeting extraordinary circumstances, which
continues to be a point of reference for today's discussions on security and human rights.

Moving on to Article 6-Right to a Fair Trial, the rulings in Campbell and Fell v. UK and
Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium highlight the need for an impartial and independent
tribunal. These cases not only reaffirm the essential nature of the right to a fair trial but
also provide a framework for the assessment of the impact of pre-trial publicity on the
integrity of judicial proceedings. In these important decisions, the European Court of
Human Rights has developed a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance to be
struck between media scrutiny and societal expectations to uphold fair trial rights.
Regarding Article 8 - Right to Respect for Private and Family Life - cases like Evans v.
UK, Dudgeon v. UK, and Hatton v. UK examine how individual rights connect with rights
related to the environment, LGBTQ+ rights, and privacy in journalism. The challenges of
improving human liberty with wider social interests are reflected in these decisions. The
legalisation of homosexuality in the UK following the Dudgeon case was a significant
turning point in history, impacting not just LGBTQ+ rights but also views toward equality
and non-discrimination in general.

About these cases, it is clear that the European Court of Human Rights has a major role
to play as regards the debate on human rights and judicial standards. Although such
judgments undoubtedly contributed to the development of fundamental liberties, it is
important to take account of current and ongoing challenges and debates over a delicate
balance between individual rights and societal interests. In line with the
interconnectedness of these cases, it is essential to remain committed to ensuring that
the ECHR principles are adapted to societal developments while respecting fundamental
values such as freedom of expression and justice.

These cases have underlined the fundamental role of the European Court of Human
Rights, calling for careful consideration of individuals' freedom and social needs when
dealing with human rights problems at large. In celebrating the progress made, it is
important to recognize the continuing challenges and to ensure that the ECHR remains a
dynamic tool to address emerging human rights issues in an evolving global
environment.

References:

BBC, ‘Handyside v. United Kingdom - Global Freedom of Expression’ (Global Freedom of

Expression2019) <https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/handyside-v-
uk/>

Campbell J and Fel P, ‘COUNCIL of EUROPE against UNITED KINGDOM Report of the
Commissio N’ (1985) <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?
library=ECHR&id=001-73569&filename=CAMPBELL%20AND%20FELL%20v.%20THE
%20UNITED%20KINGDOM.pdf> accessed 26 December 2023

David John Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Harris,
O’Boyle et al 2018)
ECHR, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (Coe.int2021)
<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:>

——, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (Coe.int2021)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:>

——, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (hudoc.echr.coe.int2021)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57473&version=meter+at+null&module=meter-
> accessed 26 December 2023

——, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (hudoc.echr.coe.int2021)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22003-1971098-
2073178%22%5D%7D> accessed 26 December 2023

——, ‘Albert and Le Compte v Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533’ (Coe.int2023)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-
57421&filename=CASE%20OF%20ALBERT%20AND%20LE%20COMPTE%20v.
%20BELGIUM%20> accessed 26 December 2023

——, ‘Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland (1992) 15 EHRR 205’
(Coe.int2023) <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-
57789&filename=CASE%20OF%20OPEN%20DOOR%20AND%20DUBLIN%20WELL
%20WOMAN%20v.%20IRELAND.docx&logEvent=False> accessed 26 December 2023

Global Freedom of Expression, ‘Handyside v. United Kingdom - Global Freedom of

Expression’ (Global Freedom of Expression2019)
<https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/handyside-v-uk/>

HUDOC, ‘HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights’ (hudoc.echr.coe.int1996)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57943&%7B%22itemid%22%3A%5B%22001-
57943%22%5D%7D>

——, ‘Andronicou and Constantinou v Cyprus (1998) 25 EHRR 491’ (Coe.int2023)

<https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/?library=ECHR&id=001-
58102&filename=CASE%20OF%20ANDRONICOU%20AND%20CONSTANTINOU%20v.
%20CYPRUS.docx&logEvent=False>

The Guardian, ‘Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland’ (LII / Legal Information
Institute2022)
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/resource/open_door_and_dublin_well_
woman_v._ireland> accessed 26 December 2023