Facts: Wolverhampton decided to close the local authority care home in which Ms Watts resided, because it did not make cost-effective provision. Ms Watts was not successful in opposing her move to alternative residential accommodation in the UK courts so applied to the European Court of Human Rights.

Judgment: the European Court of Human Rights declared the application inadmissible on the basis that i) while Article 2 ECHR was applicable, because a badly managed transfer of an elderly care home resident could well have a negative impact on their life expectancy, on the facts of this case, including the care planning undertaken by Wolverhampton, the authorities had plainly discharged their positive obligation under Article 2 to safeguard individuals from a real and immediate risk to life; ii) while the court was content to proceed on the basis that the transfer another care home interfered with Ms Watt’s private life, that interference had plainly been justified and proportionate in that there had been extensive consultation and consideration of safe management procedures, so as to minimise the adverse effects of any move, whilst there were reasons for closure based on resource allocation which required a wide margin of appreciation to be afforded.