In a case referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights, the applicants complained of an injunction imposed by the Irish courts to perpetually restrain them from providing certain information to pregnant women concerning abortion facilities outside Ireland. The majority of the Court found the injunction to be over-broad and disproportionate to the aims pursued. It noted that the applicants provided the counseling to pregnant women without advocating or encouraging abortion; and that information on abortion facilities abroad could be obtained from other sources in Ireland, such as magazines and telephone directories. The Court also noted that there was no definite link between the provision of information and the “destruction of unborn life” as contended by the respondent, given that some women who availed of the counseling services elected not to obtain an abortion. As such, the majority of the Court found that the restriction breached the applicants’ right of free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The continued relevance of this case is affected by subsequent events: first by the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995, which was superseded by the 2018 Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which allows abortion (i) during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, (ii) when the fetus has a condition that is likely fatal, or (iii) to protect the life or health of the woman.
Women and Justice: Keywords
International Case Law
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland European Court of Human Rights (1992)
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v. Stephen Grogan and others Court of Justice of the European Union (1991)
Pursuant to Article 177 of the European Economic Community treaty (“EEC treaty”), the High Court of Ireland requested a preliminary ruling on (i) whether abortion comes within the definition of “services” in Article 60 of the EEC treaty; (ii) whether a Member State can prohibit the dissemination of information about the identity, location, and means of communication with an abortion clinic in another Member State; and (iii) whether there is a right at Community law level to distribute such information. The underlying case was brought by an anti-abortion NGO against officers of student associations regarding the latter’s distribution of information on abortion clinics in another Member State in Ireland. The Court of Justice held that while medical termination of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the State in which it is carried out, constitutes a “service” within the meaning of Article 60 of the treaty, Article 59’s prohibition of restrictions on the supply of “services” did not apply to the information-dissemination activity of the student associations (which was not done in cooperation with the clinics). The Court reasoned that the link between the dissemination of information with the clinics’ services was too tenuous for the prohibition on distribution of information to be regarded as a “restriction” on the provision of the services. In 2018, Ireland enacted the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which allows abortion (i) during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, (ii) when the fetus has a condition that is likely fatal, or (iii) to protect the life or health of the woman.