Top 10 ECtHR Judgments of All Time

Soering v United Kingdom (1989)
The ECtHR ruled that extraditing Jens Soering to the U.S., where he faced the death penalty, would breach Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to the psychological torment of death row. This landmark case established that a state can violate the ECHR by exposing individuals to inhuman treatment in another country. It extended the Convention's protections extraterritorially and shaped European extradition policy by requiring human rights assessments before removing individuals to foreign jurisdictions.

Handyside v United Kingdom (1976)
In Handyside, the ECtHR upheld the UK’s ban on a sexually explicit book for children, ruling that Article 10 (freedom of expression) allows for restrictions that protect public morals. However, the Court emphasised the vital importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and introduced the concept of the “margin of appreciation”, recognising that national authorities are better placed to assess local standards. This case remains central in balancing free speech with public morality.

Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981)
The Court held that Northern Ireland’s criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults violated Article 8 (right to private life). It was the first ECtHR case to affirm LGBT rights, ruling that private sexual conduct is a core aspect of personal autonomy. The decision led to widespread legal reform across Europe, as it set a powerful precedent that moral disapproval alone is insufficient to justify interference with private life. It marked a turning point in LGBTQ+ rights under the Convention.

Osman v United Kingdom (1998)
This case involved the killing of a schoolboy by a man known to pose a threat. The claimants argued the police failed to prevent a foreseeable risk to life. The ECtHR held there was no violation of Article 2 (right to life), but criticised the domestic law for granting police blanket immunity from negligence claims, finding this violated Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Osman clarified the state's procedural obligations under the ECHR in protecting life and access to justice.

Pretty v United Kingdom (2002)
Diane Pretty, terminally ill, sought assurance that her husband would not be prosecuted for assisting her suicide. The ECtHR found no violation of her rights under Articles 2, 3, 8, 9 or 14, ruling that the Convention does not guarantee a right to die. However, the Court accepted that Article 8 includes decisions about how and when to die, though the interference was justified. Pretty confirmed the limitations of personal autonomy under the Convention and sparked global debate on assisted dying.

McCann and Others v United Kingdom (1995)
Relatives of three IRA suspects shot dead by British forces in Gibraltar challenged the killings under Article 2. While accepting that the soldiers acted in good faith, the Court found a violation due to flawed planning that failed to minimise lethal risk. McCann clarified the state's duty not just to avoid arbitrary killing, but to organise operations with respect for life. It significantly developed the positive obligations under Article 2 in the context of policing and military action.

Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2) (2005)
The ECtHR ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections). The Court held that while some restrictions may be permissible, denying the vote to all convicted prisoners was disproportionate. This judgment reaffirmed democratic participation as a fundamental right under the Convention and highlighted the need for proportionality in penal policy. The ruling remains politically contentious in the UK and led to ongoing legal and parliamentary debate.

Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom (2012)
The ECtHR ruled that deporting radical cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan would violate Article 6 (right to a fair trial), as evidence obtained through torture might be used against him. This judgment reinforced the absolute prohibition on torture-related evidence and established that states cannot deport individuals if there is a real risk of a flagrantly unfair trial. Othman expanded the procedural guarantees under Article 6 and reaffirmed the Convention’s role in upholding the rule of law even in national security cases.

Ireland v United Kingdom (1978)
In this inter-state case, Ireland challenged the UK’s use of interrogation techniques (e.g. hooding, wall-standing, and sleep deprivation) on IRA suspects. The ECtHR found these amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, but not torture. Though controversial, the case was the first major ruling on state-sanctioned mistreatment. It clarified the distinction between torture and other forms of ill-treatment and established the principle that the threshold for Article 3 violations does not require physical injury.

Airey v Ireland (1979)
Mrs. Airey, a separated woman, could not afford legal representation to apply for a judicial separation from her abusive husband. The ECtHR ruled that Ireland’s failure to provide legal aid violated Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The case expanded the Convention’s scope by recognising positive obligations on states to ensure access to justice, even in civil matters. Airey was foundational in shaping the right to legal assistance and procedural fairness, especially for vulnerable groups.