This chapter examines the use of “reasonable expectations” by the European Court of Human Rights in the context of Article 8 ECHR. After a short introduction to the history of the Convention and its broader principles and objectives and Article 8 ECHR in particular, the chapter first provides an overview of ECtHR case law making use of “reasonable expectations”. The chapter then critically evaluates this jurisprudence and shows its inconsistency and incongruence. It then examines which of the previously discussed theoretical models of “reasonable expectations” best aligns with the Convention’s framework. This examination demonstrates that applications based on the cognitive model fundamentally conflict with the Convention’s established consent requirements. Instead, it argues that approaches aligned with the normative model—specifically those incorporating existing legal frameworks (“integrationist” approach) and social norms—better serve Article 8’s objectives and the broader aims of the Convention. This finding illustrates how theoretical models of reasonable expectations must be adapted to specific legal contexts while maintaining conceptual coherence.