Zoe Tongue
@whiterxbbit.bsky.social
Dr | Lecturer in Law at the University of Leeds | abortion, international human rights law, animal rights, science fiction, comics | vegan | artist | bisexual | she/they |
https://linktr.ee/whiterxbbitcreates
https://linktr.ee/whiterxbbitcreates
I wrote about this issue in relation to the last case - M.L. v Poland - which you can read here: eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/21...
eprints.whiterose.ac.uk
November 13, 2025 at 11:18 AM
I wrote about this issue in relation to the last case - M.L. v Poland - which you can read here: eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/21...
The claims made under Article 3 were also declared inadmissible. This means that the ECtHR's approach to abortion remains unchanged, and is only dealt with as a procedural issue rather than a substantive one. Disappointing, but unsurprising.
November 13, 2025 at 11:18 AM
The claims made under Article 3 were also declared inadmissible. This means that the ECtHR's approach to abortion remains unchanged, and is only dealt with as a procedural issue rather than a substantive one. Disappointing, but unsurprising.
However, this is only because of 'the general uncertainty as regards the applicable legal framework caused by the delay in the publication of the Constitutional Court’s ruling' and not because Article 8 requires any substantive access to abortion.
November 13, 2025 at 11:17 AM
However, this is only because of 'the general uncertainty as regards the applicable legal framework caused by the delay in the publication of the Constitutional Court’s ruling' and not because Article 8 requires any substantive access to abortion.
