The applicants in the case were organisations Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman Centre, two individuals who worked for Dublin Well Woman, and two individuals who joined the application as women of child-bearing age. Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman were subjected to an injunction by Irish courts that prohibited them from providing information to pregnant women about abortion facilities available outside of Ireland.
The case was first heard in the Irish High Court and brought by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) against Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman. SPUC sought a declaration that the applicants activities were unlawful and requested an order restraining them from giving such advice. The High Court ruled in favour of SPUC. Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman appealed to the Supreme Court of Ireland and their appeal was rejected.
The case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights by the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 April 1991. The Irish Government maintained there was no breach and invited the Court to consider the case.
The applicants alleged that the injunction constituted an unjustified interference with their right to impart or receive information contrary to Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants confined their complaint to that part of the injunction which concerned the provision of information to pregnant women, omitting the part prohibiting travel arrangements to clinics. The Irish Government argued that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution was intended for the protection of the rights of others- in this case the unborn- for the protection of morals and the prevention of crime.
The Court determined whether restriction of Article 10 was proportionate. The Court found that the State’s discretion in the field of the protection of morals is was not ‘unfettered and unreviewable.’ Acknowledging that States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in ‘belief concerning the nature of human life’, the Court affirmed that this power was not ‘unlimited’. The Court held that ‘freedom of expression is also applicable to “information” or “ideas” that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.’
The Court concluded that ‘the restraint imposed on the applicants from receiving or imparting information was disproportionate to the aims pursued’ and there had been a breach of Article 10.
The applicants also claimed there were infringements of their Article 8 Convention right (right to privacy) in conjunction with Article 14 (non-discrimination); each applicant alleged this on different grounds. The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine these complaints.
The Court held by fifteen vote to eight that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded damages to Dublin Well Woman.
Download the judgment