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.

Looking ahead

This case began with events in 2014. It has taken several years to reach Strasbourg, and in that time, the landscape of digital interference has grown only more complex. Social media platforms have evolved, AI-generated content is proliferating, and the pace of technological change continues to outrun the ability of lawmakers to respond. Foreign actors are increasingly exploiting these developments to influence public opinion, distort democratic debate, and undermine electoral integrity—often without detection, and often from thousands of miles away.

The ECtHR did not elaborate what specific actions States must take to protect its democratic elections from foreign interference – and indeed it would be difficult to do so given the diversity of threats. However, it concludes that “this is a complex global problem which cannot be addressed without the co-operation of international partners and social media companies.” The Bradshaw judgment sets a clear challenge for the UK government—and for governments across Europe.

This is not the end of the story. The applicants have now requested a referral to the Grand Chamber, arguing that this is an exceptional case raising serious questions about the interpretation or application of the Convention. The applicants argue that the Court’s judgment requires further consideration by the Grand Chamber in respect of three issues.

First, the Court failed to recognise a freestanding obligation to investigate credible allegations of foreign interference with the right to free and fair elections. While the judgment acknowledged that States have a positive duty to safeguard electoral integrity, it did not require States to investigate such claims. Without a clear investigative obligation, the right to participate in elections under conditions ensuring free expression risks being theoretical and illusory only.

Second, the Court failed to clarify the scope of States’ positive obligations under A3P1.

Third, the Court afforded States an excessively wide margin of appreciation, setting an unduly high threshold for proving a violation under A3P1.

This case invites the Grand Chamber to ensure that the Convention continues to offer real, enforceable protection for free and fair elections. The outcome will shape how States respond to hostile threats against democracy—and whether voters can rely on the Convention to defend their right to choose their representatives without manipulation or foreign interference.