ECtHR warns: democracy must be defended in the digital age

In an age of deepfakes, AI bots, and algorithmic manipulation, the question of how governments safeguard democratic integrity against foreign interference is now central to the survival of free and fair elections.                               

In the recent judgment of Bradshaw and Others v United Kingdom (App no 15653/22) (ECtHR, 22 July 2025), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has sent a powerful message to governments across Europe: democratic rights in the digital age require active protection—not just of the voting process, but of the entire information environment in which elections take place.

The case was brought by former MPs Ben Bradshaw, Caroline Lucas and Alyn Smith represented by Leigh Day solicitors. They argued that the UK Government had failed to investigate credible allegations of Russian interference in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 Brexit vote, and the 2019 general election, including evidence from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament set out in the Russia Report. This, they said, breached the UK’s positive obligations under Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (A3P1) — the right to free and fair elections.

The Court did not shy away from acknowledging Russia’s systematic efforts to destabilise democratic systems across Europe and the United States, using tactics such as media manipulation, cyber-attacks, and disinformation campaigns. The Court emphasised that “the dissemination of disinformation is capable of posing a significant threat to democracy.”

The ECtHR ultimately found no violation of A3P1. It accepted that there were initial shortcomings in the UK’s response—and it is notable that the full Russia Report has still not been released.

However, the Court held that steps taken by the UK, including two parliamentary investigations and the introduction of legislation such as the Elections Act 2022 and the National Security Act 2023—fell within the “margin of appreciation” afforded to States. The judgment also sets a new precedent that foreign interference in elections can in principle engage A3P1, with the Court holding that “States are therefore under an obligation to adopt positive measures to organise elections under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people.”

The Court made clear that this obligation is not confined to the act of voting or the integrity of the final count. It encompasses the entire ecosystem in which elections take place—including the circulation of political opinions and information in the period preceding an election and the equality of opportunity for candidates.

While acknowledging the right to a free and fair election, the Court warns against kneejerk reactions noting that there is a fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship. Any actions taken by States to counter the risk of foreign election interference will need to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.