CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 7 mars 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application Nos. 14234/88 and 14235/88     OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD.     and     DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS     against   IRELAND   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 7 March 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               page     I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)                            1-3           A.   The applications (paras. 2-5)                      1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 6-12)                      2           C.   The present Report (paras. 13-17)                  3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 18-38)             4-9     III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 39-75)             10-18           A.   Complaints declared admissible (para. 39)         10             B.   Points at issue (para. 40)                        10             C.   As regards Article 10 of the Convention          10-14             (paras. 41-57)               a)   As regards the applicant companies and       11-13                 the second applicant company's employees                 (paras. 44-53)               aa) Interference with freedom of expression       11                 (para. 44)               bb) Prescribed by law (paras. 45-52)             11-13                   Conclusion (para. 53)                         13                 b)   As regards the applicants X and Y             14                 (paras. 54-57)               aa) Interference with freedom of expression       14                 (paras. 54-55)               bb) Prescribed by law (para. 56)                  14                   Conclusion (para. 57)                         14             D.   As regards Article 8 of the Convention           15-16             (paras. 58-65)               a)   The applicants, X and Y                      15-16                 (paras. 59-61)                   Conclusion (para. 62)                         16               b)   The first applicant                           16                 (paras. 63-64)                   Conclusion (para. 65)                         16             E.   As regards Article 14 of the Convention          16-17             (paras. 66-70)               Conclusion (para. 70)                             17             F.   Recapitulation (paras. 71-75)                    17-18       Concurring opinion of Mr.   H.G. SCHERMERS                     19-23   Concurring opinion of Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                         24   Partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion              25-29 of Sir Basil HALL   Dissenting opinion of Mr.   E. BUSUTTIL                        30-31   Dissenting opinion of Mr.   F. MARTINEZ                         32   Dissenting opinion of Mrs.   J. LIDDY                           33   Dissenting opinion of Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                       34-35 joined by Mr.   A. WEITZEL         APPENDIX I      History of the proceedings                    36-37   APPENDIX II     Decision on the admissibility                 38-50                of the applications   I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The applications   2.      The first application (No. 14234/88) is brought by Open Door Counselling Ltd., a company which was engaged, inter alia, in non-directive counselling of pregnant women in Dublin and other parts of Ireland.   This company was represented before the Commission by Messrs.   Amorys, solicitors, Dublin.   3.      The second application (No. 14235/88) is brought by several applicants:        -   the Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd., a company like Open Door Counselling Ltd., which was also engaged, inter alia, in non-directive counselling of pregnant women in Dublin;        -   Ms.   Bonnie Maher, born in 1945, a citizen of the United States of America, who works as a trained counsellor for the   Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd.;        -   Ms.   Ann Downes, born in 1960, a citizen of Ireland, who also works as a counsellor for the Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd.;        -   Mrs.   X, born in 1950, a citizen of Ireland, who is a television producer and is married with three children.        -   Miss Y, born in 1970, a citizen of Ireland, who is, at present, unemployed.           The applicants in the second application were represented by Mmes Barbara Hussey and Co., solicitors, Dublin.   4.      The applications are directed against Ireland.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Peter E. Smyth, succeeded by Ms.   Emer Kilcullen, both of the Department of Foreign Affairs.   5.      The applications concern restrictions placed on the applicant companies to prevent them from providing information to pregnant women as to the location or identity of, or method of communication with, abortion clinics in Great Britain.   They raise issues under Articles 8, 10 and 14 of the Convention. B.       The proceedings   6.      The first application, brought by Open Door Counselling Ltd., was introduced on 19 August 1988 and registered on 22 September 1988.   7.      The second application, brought by the Dublin Well Woman Centre and Others, was introduced on 15 September 1988 and registered on 22 September 1988.   8.      After a preliminary examination of the cases by the Rapporteur, the Commission decided on 14 March 1989 to join the applications, to give notice of them to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure (former version), and to invite the parties to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications insofar as they raised issues under Article 10 of the Convention and, as regards the second application No. 14235/88, Article 8 of the Convention.   The Government's observations were submitted on 15 September 1989, following extensions of the time-limit until 1 September 1989.   The applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 2 November 1989 (first application) and 9 November 1989 (second application).   9.      The Commission next considered the applications on 5 February 1990 and decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 3 of its Rules of Procedure (former version), to invite the parties to appear before it at a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the applications insofar as they raised issues under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.   10.      The hearing took place in Strasbourg on 15 May 1990.   The Government were represented by Mr.   P.E. Smyth, Agent, Mr.   D. Gleeson, S.C., and Mr.   J. O'Reilly, S.C., of counsel, as well as Mr.   J.F. Gormley of the Office of the Attorney General, acting as an adviser. The applicants were represented by Mrs.   M. Robinson, S.C., and Mr.   F. Clarke, S.C., of counsel, together with Ms.   B. Hussey, solicitor, and Mmes R. Burtonshaw and M. McNeaney from the Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd. as advisers.   11.      Following the hearing and deliberations the Commission declared the two applications admissible.   On 12 June 1990 the parties were sent the text of the Commission's decision on admissibility and they were invited to submit such further observations or evidence on the merits as they wished.   On 2 August 1990 the Government submitted supplementary observations.   The applicants did not submit any further observations.   The applicants were granted legal aid on 7 September 1990.   12.      After declaring the cases admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a settlement can be effected. C.       The present Report   13.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    F. MARTINEZ                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 M.    L. LOUCAIDES     14.      The text of the Report was adopted on 7 March 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is           1)   to establish the facts, and           2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found             disclose a breach by the State concerned of its             obligations under the Convention.   16.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications as APPENDIX II.   17.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission. II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   18.      The first applicant company, Open Door Counselling Ltd., was, at the material time, a company which was engaged, inter alia, in counselling of pregnant women in Dublin and other parts of Ireland. The second applicant company is a company providing similar services at two clinics in Dublin.   It was established in 1977 and is a registered charity.   It provides a broad range of services relating to counselling and marriage, family planning, procreation and health matters.   The services offered by the Centre relate to every aspect of women's health, ranging from smear tests to breast examinations, infection testing, screening, gynaecological problems, contraception, infertility, artificial insemination and counselling of pregnant women.   This counselling was provided in a non-directive manner, i.e., as regards the question of abortion, neither advising for or against an abortion as the preferred option, but rather providing objective information about such an option if desired by the patient.   The Centre employs doctors, nurses and counsellors at its Dublin clinics.   19.      The applicant companies were defendants in proceedings in the High Court which were commenced on 28 June 1985 as a private action brought by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd. (SPUC), which was converted into a relator action brought at the suit of the Attorney General by order of the High Court of 24 September 1986 (the Attorney General at the relation of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd. v.   Open Door Counselling Ltd. and the Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd.).   20.      The plaintiff sought a declaration that the activities of the applicant companies in counselling pregnant women within the jurisdiction of the court to travel abroad to obtain an abortion were unlawful having regard to Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution, which provides as follows:   "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."   The plaintiff further sought an order restraining the defendants from such counselling or assistance.   21.      No evidence was adduced at the hearing of the action which proceeded on the basis of certain agreed facts which were admitted by each of the two defendants.   The relevant agreed facts concerning the second applicant company may be summarised as follows:   a.    it counsels in a non-directive manner pregnant      women resident in Ireland;   b.    abortion or termination of pregnancy may be one of      the options discussed within the said counselling;   c.    if a pregnant woman wants to consider the abortion      option further, arrangements will be made by the      applicant to refer her to a medical clinic in      Great Britain; d.    in certain circumstances, the applicant may arrange      for the travel of such pregnant woman;   e.    the applicant will inspect the medical clinic in      Great Britain to ensure that it operates at the      highest standards;   f.    at those medical clinics abortions have been performed      on pregnant women who have been previously counselled      by the applicant;   g.    pregnant women resident in Ireland have been referred to      medical clinics in Great Britain where abortions are      performed for many years including the months of November      and December 1984.   22.      The first applicant company agreed in substance to all of the above facts with the exception of point (d).   23.      The meaning of the concept of non-directive counselling was described by the Supreme Court as follows (judgment of 16 March 1988, Mr.   Justice Finlay C.J., p. 6):   "It was submitted on behalf of each of the Defendants that the meaning of non-directive counselling in these agreed sets of facts was that it was counselling which neither included advice nor was judgemental but that it was a service essentially directed to eliciting from the client her own appreciation of her problem and her own considered choice for its solution.   This interpretation of the phrase 'non-directive counselling' in the context of the activities of the Defendants was not disputed on behalf of the Respondent.   It follows from this, of course, that non-directive counselling to pregnant women would never involve the actual advising of an abortion as the preferred option but neither, of course, could it permit the giving of advice for any reason to the pregnant women receiving such counselling against choosing to have an abortion."   24.      On 19 December 1986 Mr.   Justice Hamilton found that the activities of the defendants in counselling pregnant women within the jurisdiction of the Court to travel abroad to obtain an abortion or to obtain further advice on abortion within a foreign jurisdiction were unlawful having regard to the provisions of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution of Ireland.   25.      Mr.   Justice Hamilton confirmed that Irish common and criminal law makes it an offence to procure or attempt to procure an abortion, to administer an abortion or to assist in an abortion by supplying any noxious thing or instrument (cf. sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861).   Irish law also protects the right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception onwards. 26.      An injunction was therefore granted "... that the Defendants and each of them, their servants or agents, be perpetually restrained from counselling or assisting pregnant women within the jurisdiction of this Court to obtain further advice on abortion or to obtain an abortion."   The High Court made no order relating to the costs of the proceedings, leaving each side to bear its own legal costs.   27.      The defendants appealed against the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court which delivered judgment on 16 March 1988 rejecting the appeal.   28.      The Supreme Court noted that the appellants did not consider it essential to the service which they provided for pregnant women in Ireland that they should take any part in arranging the travel of such women who wished to go abroad for the purpose of having an abortion or that they arranged bookings in clinics for such women.   However, it was considered essential to the service they sought to provide that they should be at liberty to inform such women who wished to have an abortion outside the jurisdiction of the court of the name, address, telephone number and method of communication with a specified clinic which they had examined and were satisfied that it was one which maintained a high standard.   29.      As regards the central issue in the case, the Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr.   Justice Finlay C.J., found as follows:   "... the essential issues in this case do not in any way depend upon the Plaintiff establishing that the Defendants were advising or encouraging the procuring of abortions. The essential issue in this case, having regard to the nature of the guarantees contained in Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is the issue as to whether the Defendants' admitted activities were assisting pregnant women within the jurisdiction to travel outside that jurisdiction in order to have an abortion.   To put the matter in another way, the issue and the question of fact to be determined is:   were they thus assisting in the destruction of the life of the unborn?           I am satisfied beyond doubt that having regard to the admitted facts the Defendants were assisting in the ultimate destruction of the life of the unborn by abortion in that they were helping the pregnant woman who had decided upon that option to get in touch with a clinic in Great Britain which would provide the service of abortion. It seems to me an inescapable conclusion that if a woman was anxious to obtain an abortion and if she was able by availing of the counselling services of one or other of the Defendants to obtain the precise location, address and telephone number of, and method of communication with, a clinic in Great Britain which provided that service, put in plain language, that was knowingly helping her to attain her objective.   I am, therefore, satisfied that the finding made by the learned trial Judge that the Defendants were assisting pregnant women to travel abroad to obtain further advice on abortion and to secure an abortion is well supported on the evidence ...".   30.      The Supreme Court indicated in its judgment that the phrase in Article 40.3.3° "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" did not arise for interpretation in the case since the applicants were not claiming that the service they were providing for pregnant women was "in any way confined to or especially directed towards the due regard to the equal right to life of the mother ...".   31.      The Supreme Court also considered whether there was a constitutional right to information about the availability of abortion outside the State.   The Court stated as follows:           "The performing of an abortion on a pregnant woman terminates the unborn life which she is carrying.   Within the terms of Article 40.3.3° it is a direct destruction of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life of that unborn child.           It must follow from this that there could not be an implied and unenumerated constitutional right to information about the availability of a service of abortion outside the State which, if availed of, would have the direct consequence of destroying the expressly guaranteed constitutional right to life of the unborn.   As part of the submission on this issue it was further suggested that the right to receive and give information which, it was alleged, existed and was material to this case was, though not expressly granted, impliedly referred to or involved in the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions provided by Article 40.6.1° (i) of the Constitution, since, it was claimed, the right to express freely convictions and opinions may, under some circumstances, involve as an ancillary right the right to obtain information.   I am satisfied that no right could constitutionally arise to obtain information the purpose of the obtaining of which was to defeat the constitutional right to life of the unborn child."   32.      The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to grant an injunction but varied the terms of the order as follows:   "And it is ordered that the Defendants and each of them, their and each of their servants or agents be perpetually restrained from assisting pregnant women within the jurisdiction to travel abroad to obtain abortions by referral to a clinic, by the making for them of travel arrangements, or by informing them of the identity and location of and the method of communication with a specified clinic or clinics or otherwise."   33.      In a further hearing before the Supreme Court on 3 May 1988 the costs of the Supreme Court appeal were awarded against the defendants, making them liable for costs amounting to £42,166.71.   34.      Following the judgment of the Supreme Court the first applicant company ceased to operate.   It had no assets and, therefore, the burden of paying the aforementioned legal costs fell on the second applicant company.   35.      In a subsequent case concerning abortion information contained in a students' publication the Supreme Court issued an interlocutory injunction restraining students from "publishing or distributing or assisting in the printing, publishing or distribution of any publication produced under their aegis providing information to persons (including pregnant women) of the identity and location of and the method of communication with a specified clinic or clinics where abortions are performed" (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd. v.   Stephen Grogan and Others, judgment of 19 December 1989).   36.      Mr.   Justice Finlay C.J. considered that the reasoning of the Court in the case brought against the applicant companies applied to the activities of the students (loc. cit., p. 11):   "I reject as unsound the contention that the activity involved in this case of publishing in the students' manuals the name, address and telephone number, when telephoned from this State, of abortion clinics in the United Kingdom, and distributing such manuals in Ireland, can be distinguished from the activity condemned by this Court in the Open Door Counselling case on the grounds that the facts of that case were that the information was conveyed during periods of one-to-one non-directive counselling.   It is clearly the fact that such information is conveyed to pregnant women, and not the method of communication which creates the unconstitutional illegality, and the judgment of this Court in the Open Door Counselling case is not open to any other interpretation."   37.      Mr.   Justice McCarthy, whilst concluding that an injunction should be made in the Grogan case, nevertheless commented as follows:           "In the light of the availability of such information         from a variety of sources, such as imported magazines,         etc, I am far from satisfied that the granting of an         injunction to restrain these defendants from publishing         the material impugned would save the life of a single         unborn child."   38.      The applicants presented evidence to the Commission that there had been no significant drop in the number of Irish women having abortions in Great Britain, that number being well over 3500 women per year.   This evidence also indicated that since the applicant companies ceased their abortion referral service, the Irish women concerned seem to be going to Great Britain for abortions at a later stage of their pregnancy, the increased foetal size resulting in greater health risks.   Moreover, not many of these women are having the normal six week medical check-up after the operation, with, again, a greater risk to their health.   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.       Complaints declared admissible   39.      The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaints that the Supreme Court injunctions prohibiting the dissemination of information to pregnant women about abortion services in the United Kingdom constituted breaches of their rights under Articles 8, 10 and 14 (Art. 8, 10, 14) of the Convention.     B.       Points at issue   40.      The following are the points at issue in the present cases:   -        whether the Supreme Court injunction imposed on Open Door Counselling Ltd. and Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd. was in violation of freedom of expression, ensured by Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, in respect of those companies and the employees of the second applicant company, Mmes Maher and Downes;   -        whether this injunction was also in violation of the freedom of expression of the applicants X and Y;   -        whether the injunction was in violation of X's and Y's right to respect for private life, ensured by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention;   -        whether the injunction was also in violation of any such right to respect for private life which the first applicant company could claim under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention;   -        whether the injunction discriminated against women, as represented by the first applicant company, contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 (Art. 8, 10).     C.       As regards Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   41.      The relevant part of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention provides as follows:   "1.    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.   This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers ...   2.   The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibiities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the ... rights of others ..." 42.      On 16 March 1988 the Supreme Court of Ireland imposed on the applicant companies an injunction prohibiting them from "assisting pregnant women within the jurisdiction to travel abroad to obtain abortions by referral to a clinic, by making for them of travel arrangements, or by informing them of the identity and location of and the method of communication with a specified clinic or clinics or otherwise."   The applicants claimed that this injunction constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of expression, in particular their freedom to receive and impart information, regardless of frontiers, within the meaning of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.   43.      The Commission must analyse whether the injunction interfered with the applicants' freedom of expression and, if so, whether that interference was prescribed by law.   If there has been an interference which was prescribed by law, the Commission must then proceed to examine whether that interference had a legitimate aim and whether it was necessary in a democratic society to meet that aim, i.e. whether it corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the pursuit of the aim.   a)       As regards the applicant companies and the second         applicant company's employees   aa)      Interference with freedom of expression   44.      It has been conceded by the respondent Government that the injunction imposed on the applicant companies constituted an interference with their freedom to impart information, regardless of frontiers, envisaged by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention, and a similar interference with the freedom of the two applicant counsellors, Mmes Maher and Downes, to impart information.   bb)      Prescribed by law   45.      Any interference with freedom of expression must be prescribed by law.   The word "law" in the expression "prescribed by law" covers not only statute but also unwritten law such as Irish common law.   Two requirements flow from this expression, that of adequate accessibility and that of foreseeability of law, to enable individuals to regulate their conduct in the light of the foreseeable consequences of a given action (Eur.   Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A No. 30, pp. 30-31, paras. 47-49).   46.      The applicants contended that the imposition of the injunction in the present cases was not "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention, as under the relevant domestic law it was insufficiently foreseeable.   The Government refuted this contention.   They submitted that the law relating to the right to life of the unborn was both adequately accessible and foreseeable in Ireland, being covered by the common law, statute law and as an enumerated personal right under the Irish Constitution, confirmed or acknowledged by the constitutional amendment, Article 40.3.3°.   The Irish courts have held that the activities of the applicant companies directly threatened the enjoyment of that right and, accordingly, the restrictions on these activities were entirely foreseeable.   47.      The Commission considers that the present cases are not limited to the protection of the right to life of the unborn, as suggested by the respondent Government.   The present cases involve freedom to receive and impart information on a wider and more complex scale, involving not only the right to life of the unborn, but also women's health, pregnancy, family planning and abortion.   48.      In this connection it should be emphasised that the applicant companies were not advocating or promoting abortion.   They were providing non-directive counselling on pregnancy matters and, were any of their clients to inquire about abortion, the applicant companies provided objective information about abortion and its implications, including information about reliable and lawful services available in the United Kingdom.   49.      The Commission notes that Irish criminal law and common law make it an offence to procure or attempt to procure an abortion, to administer an abortion or to assist in an abortion by supplying any noxious thing or instrument.   It also protects the right to life of the unborn from the moment of conception onwards.   However, it is not a criminal offence to obtain an abortion abroad or to travel abroad for that purpose.   A woman procuring an abortion outside Irish jurisdiction faces no legal consequences on her return to Ireland.   A suggestion by the Government that the applicant companies may have been liable to be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the procurement of an abortion cannot be accepted by the Commission, given the absence of any principal offence being committed by the women concerned.   The Government also suggested that the present cases may have had the components of the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, albeit without a sufficient degree of proof.   However, the Commission observes that there is no evidence in the present cases that any prosecution on this basis had been contemplated by the competent authorities.   The Government did not provide any relevant, well established case-law to demonstrate the criminal nature of the activities of the applicant companies.   Thus any lawyer advising whether it would have constituted a criminal offence to provide information in Ireland about abortion services abroad prior to the Supreme Court judgment in the present cases could, in the Commission's opinion, have reasonably concluded that no criminal offence was being committed.   50.      Similarly the Commission has not been persuaded by the Government that the provision of such information would have constituted a civil wrong (tort) or breach of contract or other civil right.   The Government have made reference to the possibility that an unjustified interference with Irish constitutional rights, whether by the State or a private individual, may amount to a constitutional tort.   However, again, the Government were unable to provide the Commission with any relevant, well-established case-law which makes it clear that, on an issue as important as the conflicting constitutional rights of the right to life of the unborn and freedom of expression, the applicant companies could reasonably have foreseen that their non-directional counselling service on abortion matters was a constitutional tort in breach of the civil law.   Confirmation of the applicants' position concerning the prevailing legal situation can be found, in the Commission's view, in the fact that no sanctions under civil or criminal law were applied to prevent magazines with advertisements and other information about abortion clinics in Great Britain apparently freely circulating in Ireland.   51.      The Commission has also examined the text of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 40.3.3°, by which "the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right".   In the Commission's view this provision primarily imposes obligations upon the State, including an obligation to legislate for the protection of the right to life of the unborn.   It does not provide a clear basis for the individual to foresee that providing information about lawful services abroad, albeit affecting the right to life of the unborn, would be unlawful.   This is supported by the fact that the applicant companies were providing the full counselling/information service for some considerable time without restriction by the State until a private organisation, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd, took up the issue as a private action against the applicant companies.   It was only after the initiation of those proceedings that the Attorney General of Ireland decided to intervene.   52.      In these circumstances the Commission is of the view that the applicants could not reasonably have foreseen that their activities were unlawful and that their freedom to receive and impart information about abortion services in Great Britain could lawfully be restricted under the domestic law prevailing prior to the Supreme Court judgment. The Commission considers that a law which restricts freedom of expression in such a vital area requires particular precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly.   This is especially so when the matter concerned is information received across frontiers, as guaranteed by Article 10 (Art. 10).   The Commission again recalls, in this context, that newspapers and magazines freely circulating in Ireland apparently describe the conditions prevailing in the United Kingdom as to abortion.   The Commission finds, therefore, that the relevant domestic law was insufficiently precise at the material time. Accordingly the Commission is of the opinion that, insofar as it concerned the provision of information, the injunction imposed on the applicant companies was not "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention.   In view of this opinion, it is not necessary for the Commission to explore further the other issues raised by these applicants under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.           Conclusion   53.      The Commission concludes, by 8 votes to 5, that there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect of the Supreme Court injunction of 16 March 1988 as it affected the applicant companies and Mmes Maher and Downes.   b)       As regards the applicants X and Y   aa)      Interference with freedom of expression   55.      The Government did not accept that the Supreme Court injunction interfered with the freedom under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention of the two individual women of child-bearing age, applicants X and Y, to receive information as neither woman had claimed to be pregnant at the material time.   56.      However, the Commission refers to its decision on admissibility of 15 May 1990 in which it held that these two applicants could claim under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1), first sentence, of the Convention to be "victims" of a violation of Article 10 para. 1 of the Convention, because the Government had not shown that they would be entitled, under the legal situation prevailing in Ireland, to receive information about abortion services in Great Britain in advance of any pregnancy.   The Commission also notes that since the Supreme Court judgment of 19 February 1989 in the case of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd v. Stephen Grogan and Others and the imposition of an interlocutory injunction on the latter preventing them from informing anyone (including pregnant women) about abortion services abroad, it is clear that the Supreme Court has interpreted its judgment in the present cases to be a total ban on providing any information about such services.   In the light of these considerations the Commission considers that the applicants X and Y may require access to this information and that its denial constitutes an interference with their freedom to receive information regardless of frontiers ensured by Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1) of the Convention.   bb)      Prescribed by law   56.     The Commission is of the opinion that the interference with the freedom of expression of the applicants X and Y was not prescribed by law for the reasons outlined above at paragraphs 45-52.   Although these applicants were not a party to the proceedings against the applicant companies and their interests did not directly concern the imparting of information, but the receipt of information, the Commission considers that the state of Irish law at the relevant time was insufficiently precise to enable X and Y to foresee that it would be unlawful for the applicant companies, or indeed anyone else, to provide them with reliable, specific information about abortion clinics in Great Britain should they need to consult such clinics.           Conclusion   57.      The Commission concludes, by 7 votes to 6, that there has been a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention in respect of the Supreme Court injunction of 16 March 1988 as it affected the applicants X and Y.   D.       As regards Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention   58.      The relevant part of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as follows:           "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private         ... life ...           2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority         with the exercise of this right except such as is in         accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic         society ... for the prevention of disorder or crime, for         the protection of health or morals, or for the protection         of the rights and freedoms of others."   a)       The individual applicants, X and Y   59.      The individual applicants, X and Y, in the second application (Dublin Well Woman Centre and Others) claimed that the injunction o