1. Up to the end of 1989 the court has handed down 205 judgments, 20 of them between 1959 and 1975, 185 of them between 1976 and 1989; as to the details see Petzold, H., Die Rolle der europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention für den europäischen Einigungsprozeβ, Vorträge, Reden und Berichte aus dem Europa-Institut, nr 174, Saarbrücken 1989, p 25 Google Scholar.

2. As to the relevance of these practical impediments Trechsel, S., Die Bedeutung der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention im Strafrecht, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (101) 1989, p 819 at 829.Google Scholar

3. Merrills, J. G., The development of international law by the European Court of Human Rights, Manchester 1988.Google Scholar

4. ‘Raisonner la raison d'état, vers une europe des droits de l'homme’, Paris, 1989; especially the contributions by Ost, F.: ‘Originalité des méthodes d'interprétation de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme’ (pp 405–463)Google Scholar, and by Koering-Joulin, R. ‘Affairer de moeurs’ (pp 121–144)Google Scholar and Delmas-Marty, M. ‘Fécondité des logiques juridiques sous-jacentes’ (pp 465–494)Google Scholar concern our subject.

5. Series A No 161.

6. Recently dealt with by Trechsel, op cit, p 820.

7. Eg Müller-Dietz, H., Strafe und Staat, Frankfurt am Main 1973 Google Scholar; Noll, P., Gesetzgebungslehre, Reinbek 1973 Google Scholar; W. Hassemer - H. Steinert - H. Treiber, Soziale Reaktion auf Abweichung und Kriminalisierung durch den Gesetzgeber, in: W. Hassemer - K. Lüderssen (Hrsg), Sozialwissenschaften im Studium des Rechts, Bd III Strafrecht, München 1978, p 1.

8. In particular the German abortion case Entscheidungcn des Bundesuerfassungsgerhts (BVerGE) 39, 1.

9. Cf Lingens Case, Series A No 103.

10. Series A No 24.

11. Series A No 133.

12. Series A No 45.

13. Series A No 142.

14. Series A No 91.

15. Cf Trechsel, , op cit p 836 Google Scholar, Ress, G., Die ‘Einzelfallbezogenheit’ in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, in: Festschrift für Mosler, Heidelberg 1983, p 719 Google Scholar.

16. Text of art 8: ‘(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’.

Text of art 10: ‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, trlevision or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection ofthe reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.’

17. 8416/79: 19 DR 244 (Commission Decision).

18. 6959/75: (Decision of the Committee of Ministers) 17-111-78.

19. Series A No 30.

20. At least Wildhaber, L., Die SchweiZ und die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention im Rahmen neuerer Entwicklungen, Saarbrücken, 1989, p 8 Google Scholar, suspects that this Swiss decision swayed the procedural climate in favour of Switzerland.

21. See R. Alexy, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation, Frankfurt am Main 1978, Introduction.

22. Sensu largo brings in a cautionary note for those who object against a pure logic in law.

23. Aarnio, A., On Legal Reasoning, Turku 1977 Google Scholar, and The Rational as Reasonable, Dordrecht 1987; Alexy, op cit; Bell, J., Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions, Oxford 1983 Google Scholar; MacCormick, N., Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford 1978 Google Scholar; Peczenik, A., The Basis of Legal Justification, Lund 1983 Google Scholar; Wróblewski, J., Meaning and Truth in Judicial Decision, Helsinki 1983 Google Scholar.

24. E. Dworkin elaborates in an interesting way this idea when he talks about internal skepticism, Law's Empire, London 1986 ch II.

25. We follow Wróblewski's model, ‘Il modello teorico della applicazione della legge’ in Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, 1967.

26. C 28–30/62 (1963) ECR 31.

27. Case 26/62 (1963) ECR 1.

28. Eg Koch, H. J./Rüßmann, H., Juristish Begründungslehre, München 1982, p 271 Google Scholar.

29. See MacCormick, N., Coherence in Legal Justification, in: Festgabe für Weinberger, Berlin 1984, p 37 Google Scholar and Alexy, R., Juristische Begrundung, System und Kohärenz, in: Behrends, O.-Dießelhorst, M.-Dreier, R. (rsg), Rechtsdogmatik und praktische Vernunft, Göttingen 1990, p 95 Google Scholar.

30. This subsumptory process can be formally represented in the following way: the applicable norm will read:

Ax Fx—) OGx (for all x if x is F then it ought to be that x is G). The facts will be formulated thus: a counts as x and F is predicated of a. It ought to follow that G will be applied to a. In reality arguments are, of course, not so simple.

31. See Wróblewski, Meaning and Truth …, op cit, passim. We slightly depart from his model in that we do not follow his differentiation between internal and external justification.

32. Op cit, p 407. See also Merrills, op cit, pp 34–38.

33. The court did have its doubts concerning the precision with which, eg the prejudgment principle governing contempt of court ‘was formulated at the relevant time’ (§ 52). On this particular point see Ress, , op cit, p 721 Google Scholar.

34. Consider eg the ERTA decision, case 22/70 (1971) ECR 263, and van Duyn, case 41/74 (1974) ECR 1337.

35. And this is a requirement which is legally imposed by art 51 of the Convention.

36. The British media in particular have devoted close attention to the court's judgments.

37. Bernhardt, R., ‘Thoughts on thr Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties’, in: Mélanges en l'honneur de G. Wiarda, Köln 1988, pp 65, 71Google Scholar, has coined the formula:‘… treaty interpretation must not amount to treaty revision.’ As regards the European Court of Justice, an analysis along these lines has been interestingly carried out by Rasmussen, H., On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice, Dordrecht 1986 Google Scholar.

38. See Friedman, L., ‘On the Interpretation of Laws’ in 1 (3) Ratio Juris 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Le frou du droit. Du Code Pénal aux Droits de l'Homme. Paris 1986, p 322 and in: Fécondité des logigues juridiques, op cit, pp 46–69.

40. Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously, London 1984 Google ScholarPubMed, and Alexy, R., Theorie der Grundrechte, Frankfurt am Main 1986 Google Scholar.

41. Delmas-Marty calls these two processes effet d'incitation à pénaliser and effet d'inhibition des incriminations, op cit, pp 117–118.

42. Merrills, , op cit, p 149 Google Scholar.

43. Series A No 128.

44. Op cit, p 157. See also Delmas-Marty, Fécondité des logiques …, as well as Bernhardt, op cit, p 67. The title of W. Ganshof van der Meersch's ‘Le caractère “autonome” des termes et la “marge d'appréciation” des gouvernements dans l'interprétation de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme’ (in: Mélanges Wiarda, op cit, p 201) reveals that these two maxims can only be properly accounted for in their reciprocity, op cit, p 490.

45. On the question of justifying decisions based on standards see the interesting work by Taruffo, M., ‘La giustificazione dellc decisioni fondate su standards’ in Materiali per una Storia della cultura giuridica 1989 vol XIX Google Scholar and the bibliography cited therein.

46. See Miller v State of California 93 S Ct 2622 (1983) and, more generally, on the debate about the control of pornography in the USA Jung, H. and Müller-Dietz, H.: ‘Jugendschutz und die Neuen Medien’ in Expertenkommission Neue Medien, Vol II, Stuttgart 1981, pp 133, 172Google Scholar.

47. Series A NO 73.

48. Op cit, p 461–462.

49. See, eg Neumann, U., Juristische Argumentationslehre, Darmstadt 1986, pp 30–33 Google Scholar.

50. Delmas-Marty, , Fécondité des logiques …, op cit, pp 466–467 Google Scholar, is alluding to this concept calling it ‘une logique floue’.

51. Series A No 32; as to the concept of Schutzpflichten see D. Murswiek, Die Pflicht des Staates zum Schutz vor Eingriffen Dritter nach der Menschenrechtskonvention, in: Konrad, H.J. (ed), Grundrechtsschutz und Verwaltungsverfahren unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Asylrechts. Internationaler Menschenrechtsschutz, Berlin 1985, p 213 Google Scholar. Cf also the comparative evaluation by Classen, C. D. Die Ableitung von Schutzpflichten des Gesetzgebers aus Frciheitsrchten – ein Vergleich von deutschem und französischem Verfassungsrecht sowie der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention Jahrbuch des Öffentlichcn Rechts, Vol 36, 1987, p 29 Google Scholar.

52. See Raz, J., The Authority of Law, Oxford 1979 Google Scholar.

53. For the notion of pre-interpretative stage see R. Dworkin, Law's Empire, ch II and for the related notion of interpretation sensu largo see Wróblewski, J., Constitución y Teoria General de la Interpretación Juridica, Madrid 1985 Google Scholar.

54. As Trechsel, op cit, p 824, has pointed out, it may be of help to borrow from criminal law's ‘Dogmatik der Unterlassungsdelikte’ fully to understand what the court has been doing.

55. On the analysis of directives of interpretation see Wróblewski, Constitución, op cit.

56. Series A No 18.

57. For a closer analysis of Golder see Ost, op cit, pp 410–414.

58. Series A No 7 § 8.

59. See our discussion of the court as a social agent, above.

60. Emphasis added.

61. Series A, No 27, § 88.

62. Series A, No 28 § 42.

63. As to the comparable effectiveness-approach of the German Federal Constitutional Court with regard to the interpretation of Grundrechte cf only BVerfGE 39, 1, 38.

64. See also § 48 of this decision, mentioned above in 6.1. where the court makes reference to art 33 § 4 of the Vienna Convention.

65. Recently U. Neumann, Positivistische Rechtsquellenlehre und naturrechtlichc Methode. Zum Alltagsnaturrecht in der juristischen Argumentation, in: Dreier (rsg), Rechtspositivismus und Wertbezug des Rechts, Stuttgart 1990, p 141. Cf also H. J. Koch H. Rüßmann, op cit, p 346f.

66. In a way which recalls Fuller's, L. The Morality of Law (New Haven 1969)Google Scholar the court relates this principle not only to the requirement of legality but also to the quality of the law: foreseeability. certainty, a minimum degree of precision.

67. Dudgeon, § 56.

68. Weidmann, K., Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Verfassungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main 1985 Google Scholar, conclusions.

69. A similar conclusion has been accepted as a working hypothesis by Ost, F., op cit, p 408 Google Scholar. For a study of Justification at the European Court ofJustice see Joxerramon Bengoetxea: ‘Interpretation and Justification: the Jurisprudence of the European Court ofJustice’, Ph D thesis at the University of Edinburgh 1989, forthcoming at Oxford University Press.

70. Cf only Hart, H.L.A., Law, Liberty and Morality, Oxford 1963 Google Scholar; Devlin, P., The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford, 1965 Google Scholar; Hassemer, W., Theorie und Soziologie des Verbrechenr, Frankfurt am Main 1973 Google Scholar.

71. The court assumption in The Sunday Times that other areas like the protection of the judiciary reveal a greater degree of uniformity as compared to ‘moral issues’ would not stand the test, because, as it happens, contempt of court, is a typical common law institution. Still, the court points at the right direction by assuming the existence of less contested areas of criminal legislation.

72. Supra (note 4).

73. Cf W. Hanack, Empfiehlt es sich, die Grenzen des Sexualstrafrechts neu zu bestimmen?, Gutachten zum 47. Deutschen Juristentag, Miinchen 1968, p A 313 s.

74. See Hanack's final theses op cit, p A 254.

75. Report of the Committee on Homosexual OFfences and Prostitution (CMD 247), 1957.

76. See supra (note 70).

77. See supra (note 70).

78. Merrills, , op cit, p 215 Google Scholar.

79. See only Abbate, L.-Ferracuti, F., Pornografia e Criminalita, in: Crimznologia y Derecho Penal al servicio de le persona, Libro-Homenaje al Professor Antonio Beristain, Donostia - San Sebastian 1989, p 171 Google Scholar.

80. See only the controversial standpoints of Kutschinsky, B., Pornographie und Sexualverbrechen. Das Beispiel Dänemark, Köln 1972 Google Scholar and Selg, H., Pornographie, Psvchologische Beiträge zur Wirkungsforschung, Bern 1986 Google Scholar.

81. Robbers, G., Sicherheit als Memchenrecht, Baden-Baden 1987, p 25 Google Scholar.

82. BVerfGE 39, 1.

83. As to the general implications of a ‘right to protection’ see Alexy, R., Theorie der Grudrechte, Frankfurt am Main 1986, p 410 sGoogle Scholar.

84. As to the German abortion case see H. Müller-Dietz, Zur Problematik verfassungsrechtlicher Pönalisierungsgebote, in: Jung-Müller-Dietz (Hrsg), §0 218 StGB - Dimensionen einer Reform, Heidelberg 1983, pp 77, 98.

85. For a concept based on the combination of morality and tolerance see MacCormick, N., ‘Against Moral Disestablishment’, in: MacCormick, , Legal Righf and Social Democracy, Oxford 1982, p 18 Google Scholar.

86. In the same sense Kühne, H. H., Strafproβlehre, 3rd ed Heidelberg 1988, p 8 Google Scholar:‘…jeder der in der EMRK uemendete Begriff [wird] als ein allgemeiner, keinem nationalen Rechtssytm uerpflichteter verstanden …’.

87. BVerfGE 39, p 1, at 57 s.

88. Series A No 22.

89. Cf only Andenaes, J., Punishment and Deterrence, Ann Arbor 1974 Google Scholar; Haffke, B., Tiefenpsychologie und Generalprävention, Aarau 1976 Google Scholar; Schumann, K., Positive Generalprävention, Heidelberg 1989 Google Scholar; with special reference to life-long imprisonment Müller-Dietz, H. and Kaiser, G., Wie ist beim Mord die präventive Wirkung der lebenslangen Freiheitsstrafe einzuschätzen? in: Jescheck-Triffterer, , 1st die lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe uerfassungswidrig?, Baden-Baden 1978, pp 91 and 115Google Scholar; with special reference to the death penalty Hood, R., The Death Penalty, Oxford 1989, p 117 Google Scholar.

90. BVerfGE 39, 1, 57: ‘Indessen’ darf darüber die generalpräventive Wirkung des Strafrechts nicht vergessen werden. Sieht man die Aufgabe des Strafechts in dem Schutz besonders wichtiger Rechtsgüter und elementarer Werte der Gemeinschaft, so kommt gerade dieser Funktion eine hohe Bedeutung zu’.

91. Cf Delmas-Marty, Fécondité des logiques …, op cit, p 490 s.

92. Cf von Beyme, K, Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und Policy Anabsis, in: Festschrift für Wassermann, Neuwied 1985, pp 259 Google Scholar, 270 s.

93. Merrills, , op cit, p 25 Google Scholar.

94. For details see Ress, G., Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonuention und die Vertragsstaaten: Die Wirkungen der Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte im innerstaatlichen Recht und vor innerstaatlichen Gerichten, in: Maier, , (Hrsg), Europäischer Menschenrechtsschutz. Schranken und Wirkungen, Heidelberg, 1982, p 227 Google Scholar, Frowein, J.-Peukert, W., Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Kehl 1985 Google Scholar, art 53; Bartsch, H. J., ‘The Supervisory Functions of the Committee of Ministers under article 54 - a Postscript to Luedicke-Belkacem-Koc’, in: Mélanges Wiarda, op cit, p 47–54 Google Scholar.

95. Cf L. H. Leigh, Résistance des Etats. Royaume-Uni, in: Delmas-Marty (ed), op cit, p 329, pp. 346–352.

96. O'Malley, ‘Norris v Ireland - An Opportunity for Law Reform’, Irish Law Times 1988, pp 279, 281.

97. See in particular Trechsel, S., Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch, Zürich 1989 Google Scholar, Art 204 Rdnr 13.

98. Cf Ost (note 48).

99. Delmas-Marty, , Le flou du droit, op cit, p 297 Google Scholar.

100. The judges Rupp v Brünneck's and Simon's dissenting vote had acknowledged the novelty of the abortion decisions more clearly than the majority. See B VerfGE 39, 1 at 73 and Müller-Dietz, Zur Problematik … op cit. As to the conceptual link between X and Y v the Netherlands and BVerfGE 39, 1, see also Kühl, K., Der Einfluβ der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention auf das Strafrecht und Strafverfahrensrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Teil I), Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 1988, p 406 at 412Google Scholar.

101. Council of Europe, Report on Decriminalisation, Strasbourg 1980 Google Scholar.

102. As to the details see Golsong et al, Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention [Looseleaf], Köln Art 25, Rdnr 215. Brüggernann and Scheuten where the Commission had already adopted the same wide approach is being criticised by H. Delvaux, Die Opfereigenschaft nach Artikel 25 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonuention, in: Maier (Hrsg), Europäischer Menschenrechtsschutz … op cit, Heidelberg 1982, p 33, at 55 s. Meanwhile the court's wide interpretation of the ‘victim’ requirement is widely accepted; see, eg Rogge, K., The ‘victim’ requirement in Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in: Mélanges Wiarda, op cit, pp 539, 541Google Scholar. The court's position corresponds roughly to the one adopted by the German Federal Constitutional Court: see Stern, F., in: Kommentar zum Bonner Grundgesetz (Looseleaf), Heidelberg, Art 93, Rdnr 579Google Scholar.

103. Against the concept of relative obscenity Lenckner, T., in: Schönke-Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch, 23rd ed, München 1988 Google Scholar, § 184 Rdnr 5.

104. As to this problem see Arzt, G., Sexualdelikte und Strafrechtsreform, Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins 1983, pp 1, 21Google Scholar.

105. See also Frowein-Peukert, op cit, Art 10 Rdnr 28.

106. As to comparable problems with regard to the German Federal Constitutional Court see only Schuppert, G. F., Funktionell-rechtliche Grenzen der Verfassungsinterpretation, Königstein 1980 Google Scholar.

107. In the same direction Trechsel, , Die Bcdeutung … op cit, p 833 Google Scholar.