Dudgeon v. United Kingdom
European Court of Human Rights
[1981] ECHR 5 (1981), 4 EHRR 149 (1982)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In the 1970s, Northern Ireland’s criminal law included offenses relating to same-sex sexual contact between men. Jeffery Dudgeon (plaintiff) was a gay man living in Belfast, Northern Ireland, when he was the target of a criminal investigation. Police searched Dudgeon’s home, seized his personal property, and questioned Dudgeon about his sexual activities. Dudgeon filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights (the commission) against the United Kingdom (defendant), arguing that the Northern Ireland law that prohibited and punished same-sex sexual relationships between men violated the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the convention). Dudgeon argued that the investigation and his possible criminal prosecution violated and interfered with his right to privacy protected by Article 8 of the convention. Additionally, Dudgeon asserted that he suffered discrimination based on sex and sexuality, which was prohibited under Article 14 of the convention. The commission concluded that the prohibition of same-sex sexual relations between adult men violated Dudgeon’s right to a private life as protected by Article 8 and that examining the question of sex discrimination was not necessary. The United Kingdom appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Evrigenis and Garcia de Enterria, J.J.)
Dissent (Zekia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
