The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) jurisprudence regarding positive obligations generally concerns cases where the State has infringed its positive obligations through omissions. In the case of Human Rights Justifications, the opposite applies; the State has acted and explained its action through human rights. Due to the open-ended character of the positive obligations, a distinction between the two is only possible in the concrete application of a Human Rights Justification in the ECtHR. As the Court’s jurisprudence follows a reversed logic, it offers little guidance in determining the legality of a Human Rights Justification invoked by a State as an argument for legislation, leaving a gap where such arguments are unregulated. At its core, this gap gives rise to a legal grey zone wherein Contracting States may rely on positive obligations to justify their actions and decisions, while simultaneously evading judicial scrutiny under the very same obligations, severely challenging the State’s accountability and transparency.