The Evolution of the Public-Private Divide in European Human Rights Jurisprudence on Domestic Violence

Ellen Magg

This article asks: how has the European Court of Human Rights conceptualised the public-private divide in its domestic violence jurisprudence, and what does this reveal about the scope and limits of state responsibility under international human rights law?

The analysis adopts an interpretive doctrinal approach. It examines key ECtHR judgments commonly regarded as central to the Court’s domestic violence jurisprudence, including M.C. v Bulgaria, Opuz v Turkey, Talpis v Italy, and Volodina v Russia. The focus lies on the Court’s legal reasoning and its articulation of positive obligations.

The article argues that ECtHR jurisprudence does not reflect a simple shift from private to public conceptualisations of domestic violence. Instead, the case law demonstrates a relatively consistent recognition that domestic violence engages state responsibility where authorities fail to act with due diligence, alongside persistent gaps in implementation at national level.