DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. L. LOUCAIDES

JOINED BY MR. A. WEITZEL

        I am unable to agree with the majority that the present cases

disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.  I consider that

the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression was

prescribed by law and it was justified for the protection of morals.

   a)   Prescribed by law

        Article 40.3.3° of the Irish Constitution provides as follows:

        "The State aknowledges 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".

        I consider that this constitutional provision is clear enough

to enable the individual Irish citizens to foresee that any activity

on their part in Ireland that tends to assist or facilitate the

procurement of an abortion whether in Ireland or abroad would be

considered by the Irish courts as inconsistent with the superior law

of Ireland and therefore as illegal.  Even though the abortions

themselves, for which the information services of the applicant

companies were offered, were not expected to take place in Ireland,

such services were being offered in Ireland with the aim of assisting

or facilitating the procurement of abortion of Irish pregnant women,

in other words with the aim of contributing to the deprivation of the

life of the unborn, protected by the Irish Constitution.  Therefore it

should be expected that these services could reasonably be considered

by the domestic courts as incompatible with the above constitutional

provision.  Hence the ensuing injunction imposed on the applicant

companies in order to end their abortion referral services can be said

to have been adequately foreseeable.

        In these circumstances I conclude that the interference with

the applicants' freedom of expression, by the injunction imposed on

the applicant companies by the Supreme Court on 16 March 1988, was

"prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 of the

Convention.

   b)   Legitimate aim

        I consider that the question of abortion is a serious moral

issue in respect of which there is a divergence of views.  The

arguments in support of the different views are forceful and

substantial.  In fact in the Contracting States there is no consensus

on this issue.  It was therefore reasonably open for the respondent

State to seek to protect through its laws the "life of the unborn" as

a moral principle of its own society and to restrict freedom of speech

when and to the extent that was reasonably necessary in order to

achieve that protection.  In this respect it should be borne in mind

that the Irish people have expressed their moral belief on the

question of abortion in a referendum leading to a constitutional

amendment reinforcing their rejection of abortion as far as possible

within Irish jurisdiction.  There is thus a general consensus in

Ireland that the unborn must be protected from conception onwards from

a moral standpoint.

        In the circumstances I accept the position taken by the

respondent Government in these cases that the aim of the interference

with the freedom of expression of the applicants was the legitimate

aim of the protection of morals within the meaning of Article 10 para.

2 of the Convention.

   c)   Necessary in a democratic society

        The imposition of the injunction on the applicant companies

was necessary in order to stop the operation of their information

services which were rendering assistance to pregnant women in Ireland

to terminate the life of the unborn - such life being protected by the

Irish Constitution.  As already stated, such constitutional protection

was reflecting the moral approach of Irish society on the issue of

abortion.  Freedom of speech may legitimately, under the Convention,

be curtailed in a democratic society if that is necessary in order to

uphold and maintain the moral values of such society.  The more so

when such values are expressed and entrenched in constitutional

provisions as in the present cases.

        The European Court has acknowledged that the margin of

appreciation available to States in assessing the pressing social need

for the protection of morals is a wide one (Eur.  Court H.R., Handyside

judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A No. 24, p. 22 para. 48).

        It is important to note that the information services of the

applicant companies affected by the injunction in question did not aim

at informing people about the question of abortion generally or

expressing views or ideas on such a question.  They were providing

specific information to pregnant women in Ireland as to how they could

best have an abortion abroad.  Therefore it is reasonable to consider

that such an activity was directly undermining the moral values of the

Irish people enshrined in their Constitution and that the restriction

on the applicants' freedom of expression and freedom to receive and

impart information in the circumstances of these cases responded to

and was proportionate to a genuine and pressing social need in

Ireland.

        For the above reasons I conclude that there has been no

violation of Article 10 of the Convention in these cases.

Appendix I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

     Date                                  Item

________________________________________________________________

19.08.88                        Introduction of first application

15.09.88                        Introduction of second application

22.09.88                        Registration of both applications

Examination of admissibility

14.03.89                        Commission's deliberations and

                                decision to join the applications

                                and to invite the parties to submit

                                their written observations on

                                admissibility and merits

15.09.89                        Government's observations

09.11.89                        Applicants' reply

05.02.90                        Commission's deliberations and

                                decision to hold a hearing

15.05.90                        Hearing on admissibility and merits,

                                the parties being represented as

                                follows:

                                Government:

                                Mr.  P.E. Smyth, Agent

                                Mr.  D. Gleeson, SC, Counsel

                                Mr.  J. O'Reilly, SC, Counsel

                                Mr.  J.F. Gormley, Adviser, Office

                                of the Attorney General

                                Ms.  E. Kilcullen, Adviser,

                                Department of Foreign Affairs

                                Applicants:

                                Mrs.  M. Robinson, SC, Counsel

                                Mr.  F. Clarke, SC, Counsel

                                Ms.  B. Hussey, Solicitor

                                Ms.  R. Burtonshaw, Adviser,

                                Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd.

                                Ms.  M. McNeaney, Adviser,

                                Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd.

15.05.90                        Commission's deliberations and

                                decision to declare the applications

                                admissible

Examination of the merits

12.06.90                        Parties invited to submit further

                                written observations on the merits

02.08.90                        Government's observations

07.09.90                        Applicants granted legal aid

03.10.90                        Commission's consideration of

                                the state of proceedings

09.01.91                        Commission's consideration of

                                the state of proceedings

26.02.91                        Commission's deliberations on the

                                merits and on the text of its

                                Article 31 Report.  Final votes taken

07.03.91                        Adoption of Report