Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T20:48:49.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Personal Scope of the Right to Life Under Article 2(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights After the Judgment in A, B and C v. Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Stefan Kirchner

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention, or ECHR) is one of the widest rights in European human rights law. Applicants often rely on the norm when they seek to justify all kinds of behavior, which may be limited or even outlawed through domestic law. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that in the case of A, B and C v. Ireland, which was decided by the European Court of Human Rights in December 2010, the applicants relied on Article 8 to complain about the restrictive anti-abortion law in the Republic of Ireland. Contrary to predictions that A, B and C v. Ireland could become “Europe's Roe v. Wade,” referring to the U.S. case which led to the permissibility of abortion under U.S. law, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) held that Article 8 did not include a right to have an abortion.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , June 2012 , pp. 783 - 792
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, E.T.S. 5.Google Scholar

2 A, B and C v. Ireland, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.Google Scholar

3 Id. at 47.Google Scholar

4 For the legal situation in Ireland, see A, B and C, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 6–15.Google Scholar

5 Shannon Calt, A., B. & C. v. Ireland: ‘Europe's Roe v. Wade'?, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1189 (2010).Google Scholar

6 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar

7 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

8 Id. at 60–61.Google Scholar

9 X v. United Kingdom, 19 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 244 (1981).Google Scholar

10 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

11 Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I (Ger.).Google Scholar

12 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

13 Id.Google Scholar

14 Odièvre v. France, 2003-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.Google Scholar

15 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

16 Id. Google Scholar

17 Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, App. No. 6569/75, 3 Eur. H.R. Rep. 244 (1977).Google Scholar

18 Id. at 116.Google Scholar

19 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

20 Boso v. Italy, 2002-VII Eur. Ct. H.R. 451.Google Scholar

21 Christoph Grabenwarter, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention 132 (2d ed. 2008).Google Scholar

22 Vo v. France, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at 54.Google Scholar

23 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

24 Tanya Goldman, Vo v. France and Fetal Rights: The Decision Not to Decide, 18 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 277, 277, 279 (2005); Jakob Pichon, Does the Unborn Child Have a Right to Life? The Insufficient Answer of the European Court of Human Rights in the Judgment Vo v. France, 7 German L.J. 433, 444 (2006); The issue had been avoided by the Strasbourg organs as early as in Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, App. No. 6569/75, 3 Eur. H.R. Rep. 244, para. 60 (1977).Google Scholar

25 European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR].Google Scholar

26 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT].Google Scholar

27 Not all states that are a party to the ECHR are also parties to the VCLT. For those states, the rule of customary international law requiring that interpretation of treaties takes into account the ordinary meaning of the terminology used in the treaty applies. See Kirchner, Stefan, Medical and Biotechnological Challenges to Human Rights: The Personal Scope of Article 2 Section 1 Sentence 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights 139 (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author).Google Scholar

28 H. v. Norway, 73 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 155 (1992).Google Scholar

29 X v. United Kingdom, 19 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 244 (1981).Google Scholar

30 Id. Google Scholar

31 Id. Google Scholar

32 Id. Google Scholar

33 Kirchner, supra note 28, at 70.Google Scholar

34 Id. Google Scholar

35 Vo v. France, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at 54.Google Scholar

36 Tysiąc v. Poland, 2007-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.Google Scholar

37 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case Nos. 1 BvF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6/74, Feb. 25, 1975, 39 BVerfGE 1 (Ger.).Google Scholar

38 Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, App. No. 6569/75, 3 Eur. H.R. Rep. 244 (1977).Google Scholar

39 See Schmidt-Bleibtreu, Bruno & Klein, Franz, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz 142 (1999).Google Scholar

40 Id. Google Scholar

41 Brüggemann and Scheuten, at para. 59.Google Scholar

42 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

43 Brüggemann and Scheuten, at para. 59.Google Scholar

44 Id. Google Scholar

45 Id. Google Scholar

46 A, B and C v. Ireland, supra note 2 at 61.Google Scholar

47 Boso v. Italy, 2002-VII Eur. Ct. H.R. 451, para. 2.Google Scholar

48 Kirchner, supra note 28, at 65.Google Scholar

49 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Apr. 4, 1997, CETS No. 164. See also Riedel, Eibe, Global Responsibilities and Bioethics: Reflections on the Council of Europe's Bioethics Convention, 5 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 179 (1997).Google Scholar

50 Vo v. France, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at 9, 54–58.Google Scholar

51 See id. Google Scholar

52 Id. Google Scholar

53 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dec. 7, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1 [hereinafter EU Charter].Google Scholar

54 Joint communication from Presidents Costas and Skouris (Jan.17, 2011), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/02164A4C-0B63-44C3-80C7-FC594EE16297/0/2011Communication_CEDHCJUE_EN.pdf (last visited Apr. 29, 2012).Google Scholar

55 On the importance of the possibility of the accession of the EU to the ECHR, which has been provided in the Lisbon treaty, see also Michael O'Boyle, The Future of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 German L.J. 1862, 1862–66, 1875–76 (2011).Google Scholar

56 On the EU's potential accession to the Convention see Noreen O'Meara, “A More Secure Europe of Rights?” The European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and EU Accession to the ECHR, 12 German L.J. 1813 (2011).Google Scholar

57 On the emerging conflict of laws rules between the ECHR and EU law see Sauer, Heiko, Bausteine eines Grundrechtskollisionsrechts für das europäische Mehrebenensystem, 38 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 195, 197 (2011).Google Scholar

58 Vo v. France, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at 50–53. See also Ehlers, Dirk, Die Grundrechte des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts, 24 Jura – Juristische Ausbildung 468, 472 (2002).Google Scholar

59 See Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, G.A. Res. 48/014, U.N. Doc. A/RES/48/104 (Dec. 20, 1993).Google Scholar

60 Vo, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at 9, 48.Google Scholar

61 Id. at 51. See also Goldman, supra note 25, at 280.Google Scholar

62 See Evans v. United Kingdom, 2007-I Eur. Ct. H.R. at para.71; see also Ford, Mary, Evans v United Kingdom: What Implications for the Jurisprudence of Pregnancy?, 8 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 171 (2008).Google Scholar

63 Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, App. No. 6569/75, 3 Eur. H.R. Rep. 244, para. 59 (1977).Google Scholar

64 X v. United Kingdom, 19 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 244, 253 (1981).Google Scholar

65 Vo v. France, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. at 33.Google Scholar