C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children v Grogan [1991]
Share
C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children v Grogan [1991] ECR I-4685 is an EU law case concerning fundamental rights of the European Union in relation to national legislation.
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) sued three student organisations for publishing information about abortion clinics in Great Britain, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. SPUC, relying on the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution, claimed a violation of the right to life of the unborn. Irish courts had held that assisting pregnant women in traveling abroad for abortions, including informing them about clinics, was illegal. The student groups argued that their activities were protected under Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty, guaranteeing the right to travel between member states for services, and that their fundamental right to expression was infringed by national laws.
The Court of Justice ruled that fundamental rights in EU law do not apply in cases where national law has a more than tenuous connection to EU legislation or treaties. Abortion is considered a service for remuneration under Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty. However, restrictions on the distribution of information are not prohibited under the Treaty, as long as the distribution is not in cooperation with the listed clinics, and the connection is deemed too tenuous. The court can rule on the compatibility of national legislation with fundamental rights when the legislation falls within the field of application of Community law. However, the Court has no jurisdiction regarding national legislation outside the scope of Community law. In this case, the prohibition on distributing information about abortion clinics fell outside the realm of community law.
The judgment emphasised that the Court of Justice could only rule on the compatibility of national legislation with fundamental rights when that legislation fell within the field of application of Community law. In this instance, the restriction on distributing information about abortion clinics was considered to be outside the scope of Community law, and therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction in this regard.
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) sued three student organisations for publishing information about abortion clinics in Great Britain, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. SPUC, relying on the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution, claimed a violation of the right to life of the unborn. Irish courts had held that assisting pregnant women in traveling abroad for abortions, including informing them about clinics, was illegal. The student groups argued that their activities were protected under Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty, guaranteeing the right to travel between member states for services, and that their fundamental right to expression was infringed by national laws.
The Court of Justice ruled that fundamental rights in EU law do not apply in cases where national law has a more than tenuous connection to EU legislation or treaties. Abortion is considered a service for remuneration under Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty. However, restrictions on the distribution of information are not prohibited under the Treaty, as long as the distribution is not in cooperation with the listed clinics, and the connection is deemed too tenuous. The court can rule on the compatibility of national legislation with fundamental rights when the legislation falls within the field of application of Community law. However, the Court has no jurisdiction regarding national legislation outside the scope of Community law. In this case, the prohibition on distributing information about abortion clinics fell outside the realm of community law.
The judgment emphasised that the Court of Justice could only rule on the compatibility of national legislation with fundamental rights when that legislation fell within the field of application of Community law. In this instance, the restriction on distributing information about abortion clinics was considered to be outside the scope of Community law, and therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction in this regard.
