## Facts

- The Ministry of Defence maintained a policy barring homosexuals from serving in the UK armed forces, justified as necessary for morale, unit cohesion, and service effectiveness.
- Duncan Lustig‑Prean, a Royal Navy officer with strong performance records, became the subject of an investigation after an allegation that he was homosexual.
- Royal Navy investigators conducted interviews that included detailed questioning about Lustig‑Prean’s sexual orientation, relationships, and sexual practices, and they interviewed third parties.
- Despite his service record, Lustig‑Prean was administratively discharged solely because of his sexual orientation.
- John Beckett, a Royal Navy weapons engineering mechanic with positive evaluations and officer potential, disclosed his homosexuality to a chaplain and later to a superior officer.
- Beckett was investigated in a similar manner, including intrusive questioning about his private life and sexual activity and inquiries to third parties.
- Beckett was administratively discharged solely because of his sexual orientation; his internal appeal was unsuccessful.
- Both applicants experienced serious career and personal consequences, including reputational harm and loss of career prospects and benefits.
- After unsuccessful domestic challenges, both applicants filed applications to the European human rights system; the European Court of Human Rights issued judgment in their favor.

## Issues

1. Whether intrusive military investigations into the applicants’ homosexuality and their discharge solely for sexual orientation interfered with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. If there was interference, whether it was justified as “necessary in a democratic society” in pursuit of legitimate aims such as national security and prevention of disorder.
3. Whether it was necessary to decide a separate discrimination claim under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

## Decision

- The court held that the investigations and dismissals constituted a direct interference with the applicants’ private lives under Article 8.
- The court accepted the measures were based on an identifiable legal policy and pursued legitimate aims, including national security and prevention of disorder.
- The court held the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” because the justifications relied largely on speculative concerns and negative attitudes rather than concrete evidence.
- The court found the blanket nature of the exclusion and the intrusiveness of the investigations rendered the measures disproportionate, particularly given less restrictive means were available.
- Having found an Article 8 violation, the court declined to reach a separate determination under Article 14.
- The court awarded just satisfaction, including damages and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Sexual orientation and sexual life fall within the protected scope of “private life” under Article 8.
- Intrusive questioning and official inquiries into an individual’s sexual orientation and sexual practices can constitute a direct interference with private life.
- Discharge from public service solely for sexual orientation constitutes interference with private life and requires strong justification.
- Even in military and national security contexts, deference to state judgment is limited; the state must provide evidence that restrictions meet a pressing social need and are proportionate.
- General hostility or negative attitudes of a majority toward a minority cannot, without substantiated operational necessity, justify broad restrictions on fundamental rights.
- A blanket exclusion policy, applied regardless of individual conduct or performance and enforced through intrusive investigations, is likely disproportionate where individualized discipline mechanisms could address genuine service concerns.

## Conclusion

The court held that the UK’s investigation and discharge of the applicants solely because they were homosexual violated Article 8 because the measures were intrusive, based on speculative fears and majority bias rather than evidence, and disproportionate in light of less restrictive alternatives.


Lustig-Prean & Beckett v. United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 31417/96 & 32377/96 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1999)