Three women, known as A, B and C, challenged
This case was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in August 2005. The challenge was heard at a full hearing before its Grand Chamber of 17 judges on December 9, 2009.
The case was taken by three women, supported by the IFPA, who travelled abroad for abortion services. They argued that the criminalisation of abortion services in
The first applicant had children in the care of the State as a result of personal problems and considered a further child would jeopardise the successful reunification of her existing family.
The second applicant was not prepared to become a single parent. The third applicant was in remission from cancer when she became pregnant. Unaware that she was pregnant she underwent a series of check ups contraindicated during pregnancy. She claims she could not obtain clear advice about the risks to her health and life and to the foetus if she continued to term.
The three applicants, who all became pregnant unintentionally, told the court that the impossibility of obtaining an abortion in
They contended that
In December 2011 the European Court of Human Rights delivered its ruling in the case of ABC v
The Court unanimously found that
In January 2012, the Government established an expert group to advise Government on the implementation of the A, B and C v
In late November 2012, the expert group report was published. The report states that “The X case is the law of the State, as declared by its highest Court. It is binding on all lower courts and generally.” The report states that: “It would obviously be insufficient for the State to interpret the Court’s judgment as requiring only a procedure to establish entitlement to termination without also giving access to such necessary treatment.” The report expresses concern that any option short of legislation could fail to fulfill the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights.
Supervision of A, B and C v Ireland by the Council of Europe
The Committee of Ministers of the COE oversees the implementation or "execution" of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee is monitoring the A, B and C v Ireland judgment under its enhanced supervision procedure, and has issued decisions in relation to the Irish Government's progress in giving effect to the judgment at its meetings of September 2011, March and December 2012 and March 2013.
The Committee has expressed concern at the Government’s delay in implementing the judgment in A, B and C v
At its December 2012 meeting the Committee of Ministers noted the view of the expert group that only the implementation of a statutory framework would provide a defence from criminal prosecution and urged the Irish Government to expedite implementation of the judgment in the A, B and C v Ireland case.
The Committee has repeatedly highlighted the lack of any interim measures in place to ensure that a woman in the position of Applicant C would have access to the right to a termination of her pregnancy. The Committee has called on