Case Brief
Parties : A, B & C v Ireland
Facts : The three women in question in this case ( A,B & C ) each wanted to get an abortion in Ireland for different reasons. Each of these women had obtained an abortion abroad but had suffered complications after the procedure. A did not want to keep her baby as she had already had 4 children who were not in her custody and in foster care so she did not see herself capable of caring for another child, she had also suffered problems with alcoholism and depression. B had become pregnant after the morning after pill had failed to work. She was certain that she was unfit to look after the child at that time in her life. She had been informed that there was a risk she could have an ectopic pregnancy (which she did not ) and got an abortion. C had suffered from cancer and was advised that it was hard to predict the affect that the pregnancy would have on the cancer. She had unintentionally become pregnant when the cancer went into remission. It was only discovered she was pregnant during a series of check-ups for cancer. She was advised that the chemotherapy treatment would greatly danger the foetus in the first trimester. She had developed fear that her treatment would greatly danger the baby’s life or that the pregnancy would provide a huge risk to her life. C was the only one of the three applicants that was successful in this case as A and B’s claims were dismissed. Procedural History : First began as an application by A, B & C against Ireland in the European Human Rights Court under Article 34 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The application was then allocated to the Third Section of the Court. The Chamber relinquished their jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on July 7th 2009. A hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg on December 9th 2009. Issue Presented : Whether the State of Ireland had breached Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights in regards to applicants A, B and C ? Holding : No – In regards to A and B, the Court did not believe that there was any breach of the Articles in question and found the application inadmissible. Yes – The Court that the State had breached Article 8 of the Convention in relation to applicant C but subsequently no other Article of the Convention had been breached by the State in relation to applicant C. Rule of Law : With regards to applicant A and B no violation of Article 8 of the Convention had been found in their case as it was believed that a fair balance had been struck between the State and both applicants as they could lawfully travel abroad to obtain the abortion and post procedure they would have medical information …show more content…
They presented the issue as they believed to be in this case in court that the right to life of the foetus can be balanced against the right to life of the mother and this would be the case in most European States under the consensus as [ the right to life of the mother and in some countries her well being would outweigh the right to life of the unborn foetus ]. This case, noted in the dissenting opinions was the first time the court had disregarded the existence of the European consensus due to the Irish people having profound moral views. These Six judges had strongly disagreed with the Courts decision to disregard the European consensus which is rare in the Courts case law as it had shifted the focus of the case away from the core issue. They argued that the consensus exists and that it gives a greater precedence to the life of the mother over the life of the foetus. The dissenting judges saw this disregard for the consensus as “a real and dangerous new departure in the Court’s case law”. Judges Lopez Guerra and Casadevall noted in their concurring opinions that the Court had failed to take into account the personal suffering of applicants A and B due to the restrictive abortion laws of the State
Parties : A, B & C v Ireland
Facts : The three women in question in this case ( A,B & C ) each wanted to get an abortion in Ireland for different reasons. Each of these women had obtained an abortion abroad but had suffered complications after the procedure. A did not want to keep her baby as she had already had 4 children who were not in her custody and in foster care so she did not see herself capable of caring for another child, she had also suffered problems with alcoholism and depression. B had become pregnant after the morning after pill had failed to work. She was certain that she was unfit to look after the child at that time in her life. She had been informed that there was a risk she could have an ectopic pregnancy (which she did not ) and got an abortion. C had suffered from cancer and was advised that it was hard to predict the affect that the pregnancy would have on the cancer. She had unintentionally become pregnant when the cancer went into remission. It was only discovered she was pregnant during a series of check-ups for cancer. She was advised that the chemotherapy treatment would greatly danger the foetus in the first trimester. She had developed fear that her treatment would greatly danger the baby’s life or that the pregnancy would provide a huge risk to her life. C was the only one of the three applicants that was successful in this case as A and B’s claims were dismissed. Procedural History : First began as an application by A, B & C against Ireland in the European Human Rights Court under Article 34 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The application was then allocated to the Third Section of the Court. The Chamber relinquished their jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber on July 7th 2009. A hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg on December 9th 2009. Issue Presented : Whether the State of Ireland had breached Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights in regards to applicants A, B and C ? Holding : No – In regards to A and B, the Court did not believe that there was any breach of the Articles in question and found the application inadmissible. Yes – The Court that the State had breached Article 8 of the Convention in relation to applicant C but subsequently no other Article of the Convention had been breached by the State in relation to applicant C. Rule of Law : With regards to applicant A and B no violation of Article 8 of the Convention had been found in their case as it was believed that a fair balance had been struck between the State and both applicants as they could lawfully travel abroad to obtain the abortion and post procedure they would have medical information …show more content…
They presented the issue as they believed to be in this case in court that the right to life of the foetus can be balanced against the right to life of the mother and this would be the case in most European States under the consensus as [ the right to life of the mother and in some countries her well being would outweigh the right to life of the unborn foetus ]. This case, noted in the dissenting opinions was the first time the court had disregarded the existence of the European consensus due to the Irish people having profound moral views. These Six judges had strongly disagreed with the Courts decision to disregard the European consensus which is rare in the Courts case law as it had shifted the focus of the case away from the core issue. They argued that the consensus exists and that it gives a greater precedence to the life of the mother over the life of the foetus. The dissenting judges saw this disregard for the consensus as “a real and dangerous new departure in the Court’s case law”. Judges Lopez Guerra and Casadevall noted in their concurring opinions that the Court had failed to take into account the personal suffering of applicants A and B due to the restrictive abortion laws of the State