{"id":294399,"date":"2025-07-26T22:42:23","date_gmt":"2025-07-26T22:42:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/294399\/"},"modified":"2025-07-26T22:42:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-26T22:42:23","slug":"uk-does-not-need-to-hold-inquiry-into-russian-disinformation-echr-rules-european-court-of-human-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/294399\/","title":{"rendered":"UK does not need to hold inquiry into Russian disinformation, ECHR rules | European court of human rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

An attempt by three former MPs to force the UK government to hold an inquiry into the impact of Russian disinformation on the Brexit vote and other recent elections has failed at the European court of human rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Strasbourg court ruled on Tuesday<\/a> that countries had a \u201cwide margin\u201d in determining how to tackle attempts at electoral interference, and ruled against a case brought by Ben Bradshaw, Caroline Lucas and Alyn Smith.<\/p>\n

Though the seven judges on the court held \u201cthere were undoubtedly shortcomings\u201d in the UK\u2019s initial response to allegations of Russian interference into the 2016 referendum, the deficit was made up for subsequently.<\/p>\n

They noted that there had been two inquiries in the UK, including the Russia report<\/a> by the intelligence and security committee in 2020, and a succession of legislation, including the National Security Act 2023, as a response to the issue.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile the applicants have criticised these measures as \u2018too little, too late\u2019, the measures nevertheless appear to address the points raised by the applicants,\u201d concluded the judges in a ruling released on Tuesday morning.<\/p>\n

The former MPs and their legal team said they were pleased with aspects of the ruling, noting it was the first time the European court had considered how democracies should protect themselves from external meddling.<\/p>\n

Lucas said: \u201cIt\u2019s hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate.\u201d<\/p>\n

A government spokesperson said the court had found no violation of human rights law. They added that the UK was \u201ccommitted to safeguarding our electoral processes\u201d and highlighted plans announced last week<\/a> to close loopholes that could allow foreign money to influence UK elections.<\/p>\n

Russia has been accused repeatedly of trying to influence western elections in the Kremlin\u2019s interest, including the hack of sensitive Democratic party emails<\/a> in July 2016, before Donald Trump\u2019s first election as president.<\/p>\n

Moscow also sought to interfere in the 2019 election in the UK, by amplifying an illicitly acquired NHS dossier, which ended up in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn<\/a>, though the then Labour leader was unaware of the dissemination effort.<\/p>\n

However, the European court concluded that while the threat posed by disinformation should not be underestimated, the precise impact of Russian or other interference efforts was \u201cdifficult to assess accurately\u201d and in particular \u201cthe impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election\u201d.<\/p>\n

The three former MPs, from Labour, the Green party and the SNP, all opponents of Brexit<\/a>, had launched a judicial review application at the high court in the aftermath of the Russia report. Rejected by the court in London, they turned to the Strasbourg court, which ruled that their case was admissible.<\/p>\n

The ex-MPs argued the UK government and intelligence agencies had failed to conduct any proper assessment of Kremlin attempts to interfere with the Brexit vote, which they said was a breach of article 3, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to free elections.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, the judges concluded \u201cany failings cannot be considered to be sufficiently grave as to have impaired the very essence\u201d of the three former MPs\u2019 rights to participate in free and fair elections.<\/p>\n

Though democracies should \u201cnot remain passive\u201d in defending themselves, \u201cthey must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation\u201d in determining how to do so, the judges held. Counter-disinformation efforts needed to be balanced against freedom of expression, particularly important during an election period, they added.<\/p>\n

Quick GuideContact us about this storyShow\"\"<\/p>\n

The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.<\/p>\n

If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods.<\/p>\n

Secure Messaging in the Guardian app<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.<\/p>\n

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS<\/a>\/Android<\/a>) and go to the menu. Select \u2018Secure Messaging\u2019. <\/p>\n

SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post<\/strong><\/p>\n

See our guide at theguardian.com\/tips<\/a>\u00a0for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Illustration: Guardian Design \/ Rich Cousins<\/p>\n

Thank you for your feedback.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An attempt by three former MPs to force the UK government to hold an inquiry into the impact…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":294400,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,748,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-294399","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114921953303749273","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=294399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294399\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/294400"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=294399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=294399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=294399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}