3 The Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights
3 The Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights
3 The Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights
3.1 Introduction
It was not until Protocol No. 11 came into effect in November 1998 –
abolishing the European Commission of Human Rights and stripping the
Committee of Ministers (CM) of its quasi-judicial power to decide
whether the Convention had been violated – that the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR) became the Council of Europe’s sole insti-
tution for the judicial interpretation and application of the ECHR.
Strictly speaking, therefore, the jurisprudence of the Convention system
prior to this point includes opinions of the European Commission of
Human Rights and, to a lesser extent, decisions by the CM resolving
complaints. However, over the past two decades the most important
elements of these now-defunct sources of Convention case law have been
incorporated by citation into the Court’s own jurisprudence – hence the
title of this chapter.
As already indicated in Chapter 2, between 1959 and 1999 the Court
rendered fewer than 1,000 judgments. Yet, by the end of 2016, the figure
had risen to a total of 19,570. Between 2000 and 2016 an annual average
of 1,092 were delivered, including 695 in 2000, the year with the fewest
within this timeframe, and 1,625 in 2009, the year with the most. Eighty-
four per cent of judgments, and 92 per cent of cases judged on the merits
result in a finding of at least one violation. From 1959 to 2016 the
provisions most frequently found to have been breached were the right
to fair trial under Article 6 (40.32 per cent, 21.34 per cent of which
concerned length of proceedings), the right to liberty and security under
Article 5 (12.86 per cent), the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (11.93 per cent), the right not to be
tortured etc under Article 3 (10.71 per cent), the right to an effective
remedy under Article 13 (8.39 per cent), the right to respect for private
and family life under Article 8 (4.69 per cent) and the right to life under
Article 2 (4.58 per cent).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
1
See, e.g., W. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University
Press, 2015); D. Harris, M. O’Boyle, E. Bates and C. Buckley, Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick:
Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 3rd edn.,
2014); B. Rainey, E. Wicks and C. Ovey, Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Conven-
tion on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 6th edn., 2014).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
2
See S. Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and
Prospects (Cambridge University Press, 2006), ch. 4.
3
Lithgow v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 8 July 1986, at paras. 114–19; Golder v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 February 1975, at paras. 29–30.
4
Ireland v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 239; Austria v Italy, HUDOC,
11 January 1961 (Commission Decision) 4 YB 116, 138.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
individual rights holds that the Convention ‘is intended to guarantee not
rights that are theoretical and illusory but rights that are practical and
effective,’5 and that what matters most is the reality of the applicant’s
position rather than its formal status.6 The Court has also expressed this
idea in other terms; for example, the Convention should not be inter-
preted in a manner that leads to unreasonable or absurd consequences.7
The principle of implied rights and implied limitations holds that, given
the Convention’s primary function, rights should be interpreted broadly
and exceptions narrowly.8 This is linked to the principle of non-abuse of
rights and limitations, which prohibits states, and others, from under-
mining the protection of rights by abusing either the rights themselves or
their limitations, and to the principles of implied rights and implied
limitations, which allow some scope for inherent but not extensive
limitations and extensions of rights to be read into the text.9 The
principle of positive obligations also allows the Court to interpret the
Convention in a manner that imposes obligations upon states actively to
protect Convention rights and not merely the negative obligation to
avoid violating them.10
Armed with the principle of autonomous interpretation the Court can
define for itself some of the Convention’s key terms in order to prevent
states’ conveniently re-defining their way around their obligations, for
example, by preventing certain crimes’ being re-designated as merely
‘administrative infractions.’11 Similarly, the principle of evolutive, or
dynamic, interpretation enables out-moded conceptions of how terms
5
Peltier v France, HUDOC, 21 May 2002, at para. 36; Soering v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
7 July 1989, at para. 87.
6
Welch v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 9 February 1995, paras. 27 & 34; Deweer v Belgium,
HUDOC, 27 February 1980, at para. 44.
7
Ost, F., ‘The Original canons of interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights’
in M. Delmas-Marty and C. Chodkiewicz (eds.), The European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights: International Protection Versus National Restrictions (Dor-
drecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1992), pp. 238–318, 304.
8
Ernst v Belgium, HUDOC, 15 July 2003, at para. 56; Barthold v Germany, HUDOC,
25 March 1985, at para. 43; Guzzardi v Italy, HUDOC, 6 November 1980, at para. 98;
Winterwerp v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 24 October 1979, at para. 37; Sunday Times v
United Kingdom (No. 1), HUDOC, 26 April 1979, at para. 65; Klass and Others v
Germany, HUDOC, 6 September 1978, at para. 42.
9
Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 11 October 1979 (dec.).
10
See A. Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention
on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Hart, 2004).
11
Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 9 October 2003 (GC), at paras. 82–9;
Engel and Others v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 8 June 1976, at paras. 80–3.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
12
I v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 July 2002 (GC), paras. 53–5, 64–5 & 73.; Dudgeon v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 22 October 1981; S. C. Prebensen, ‘Evolutive interpretation of
the European Convention on Human Rights’ in P. Mahoney, F. Matscher, H. Petzold and
L. Wildhaber (eds.), Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective – Studies in
Memory of Rolv Ryssdal (Cologne: Carl Heymans, 2000), pp. 1123–37.
13
H. Petzold, ‘The convention and the principle of subsidiarity’, in R. St. J. Macdonald,
F. Matscher and H. Petzold (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human
Rights (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), pp. 41–62. According to a former President
of the Court, Rolv Ryssdal, the principle of subsidiarity is ‘probably the most important of
the principles underlying the Convention’, Ryssdall, R., ‘Opinion: The coming of age of
the European Convention on Human Rights’, European Human Rights Law Review,
[1996], 18–29, 24.
14
See, e.g., J. McBride, ‘Proportionality and the European Convention on Human Rights’
in E. Ellis (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart,
1999), pp. 23–35; M.-A. Eissen, ‘The principle of proportionality in the case-law of the
European Court of Human Rights’ in R. St. J. Macdonald et al. (eds.), European System,
pp. 125–46.
15
See, e.g., S. Greer, ‘Universalism and relativism in the protection of human rights in
Europe’ in P. Agha (ed.) Human Rights between Law and Politics (Oxford: Hart, 2017),
pp. 17–36; C. M. Zoethout, ‘Margin of appreciation, violation and (in)compatibility: Why
the European Court of Human Rights might consider using an alternative mode of
adjudication’, European Public Law, 20 (2014) 309–30; A Legg, The Margin of
Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (Oxford
University Press, 2012); Y. Arai-Takahashi, ‘The margin of appreciation doctrine:
A theoretical analysis of Strasbourg’s variable geometry’ in A. Føllesdal, B. Peters and
G. Ulfstein (eds.), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
of legality, the rule of law and procedural fairness – which seek to subject
the exercise of public power to effective, formal legal constraints in order to
avoid arbitrariness16 – and the principle of democracy, which assumes that
human rights flourish best in the context of democratic political insti-
tutions and a tolerant social climate.17
While the Court, and most commentators, tend to regard the prin-
ciples of interpretation as a primordial soup with no particular structure
or hierarchy, it has been argued that the teleological principle suggests
they can, and should, be conceived in terms of three primary consti-
tutional principles – the ‘rights principle’, the ‘democracy principle’ and
the ‘principle of priority to rights’ each exercised according to the
‘principle of legality/procedural fairness/rule of law’ – to which the
remaining principles of interpretation are subordinate, a distinction that
would assist the Court in more consistently adhering to constitutional
pluralism.18 The ‘rights’ principle holds that, in a democratic society,
Convention rights should be protected by national courts, and by the
ECtHR, through the medium of law. The ‘democracy’ principle main-
tains that, in a democratic society, collective goods/public interests
should be pursued by democratically accountable national non-judicial
public bodies within a framework of law. The principle of ‘priority-to-
rights’ mediates the relationship between the rights and democracy
principles by emphasising that Convention rights take procedural and
evidential, but not conclusive substantive priority over the democratic
pursuit of the public interest, according to the terms of given Convention
National, European and Global Context (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 62–105;
J. Gerards, ‘Pluralism, deference and the margin of appreciation doctrine’, European Law
Journal, 17 (2011), 80–120; J. Kratochvíl, ‘The inflation of the margin of appreciation by
the European Court of Human Rights’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29
(2011), 324–57; G. Letsas, ‘Two concepts of the margin of appreciation’, Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies, 26 (2006), 705–32; J. A. Sweeney, ‘Margins of appreciation: Cultural
relativity and the European Court of Human Rights in the post–Cold War era’, Inter-
national and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54 (2005) 459–74; Y. Arai-Takahashi, The
Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence
of the ECHR (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002).
16
See, G. Lautenbach, The Concept of the Rule of Law and the European Court of Human
Rights (Oxford University Press, 2013).
17
See C. Gearty, ‘Democracy and human rights in the European Court of Human Rights:
A critical appraisal’, Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 51 (2000), 381–96; A. Mowbray,
‘The role of the European Court of Human Rights in the promotion of democracy’, Public
Law [1999], 703–25; S. Marks, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and its
“democratic society”’, British Yearbook of International Law, 66 (1995), 209–38.
18
Greer, European Convention, ch. 4.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
19
For discussions of ‘activism’ and ‘restraint’ as styles of adjudication in the Convention
context see: P. Thielborger, ‘Judicial passivism at the European Court of Human Rights’,
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 19 (2012), 341–47; E. Voeten,
‘Politics, judicial behaviour and institutional design’ in J. Christoffersen and M. Madsen
(eds.), The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics (Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2011), pp. 61–76; D. Popovic, ‘Prevailing of judicial activism over self-restraint
in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’, Creighton Law Review, 42
(2009), 361–96; P. Mahoney, ‘Judicial activism and judicial self-restraint in the European
Court of Human Rights: Two sides of the same coin’, Human Rights Law Journal, 11
(1990), 57–88. For a discussion of the distinction between ‘scepticism, ‘realism’ and
‘perfectionism’ in relation to human rights see S. Greer, ‘Being ‘realistic’ about human
rights?’ (2009) 60 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 145–61.
20
L. Wildhaber, ‘Rethinking the European Court of Human Rights’, in Christoffersen and
Madsen (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics,
pp. 2014–29.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
21
Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, HUDOC, 8 July 2004 (GC), at para. 312. See also
Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, HUDOC, 19 October 2012 (GC), at paras.
105–7; Ivanţoc v Moldova and Russia, HUDOC, 15 November 2011, at paras. 105–6 &
120; Assanidze v Georgia, HUDOC, 8 April 2004 (GC), at paras. 137–43.
22
Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 July 2011 (GC).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
While this clarifies the position, it does not fully settle whether, and if so
under what conditions, acts of war such as aerial bombing by a Conven-
tion state (particularly those that are lawful under the international law of
armed conflict) would bring casualties in the enemy state under the
‘jurisdiction’ of a member state for the purposes of this provision.
23
Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 December 2012 (dec.), at para. 70.
24
Protocol No. 6 abolishes the death penalty except in wartime while Protocol No. 13
abolishes it in all circumstances. Execution no longer occurs in any Council of Europe
state and, according to Al Nashiri v Poland, HUDOC, 24 July 2014, at para. 577, Art. 2
prohibits deportation or extradition where there are ‘substantial grounds . . . for believing’
there is a ‘real risk of being subjected to the death penalty’.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
25
Aydoğdu v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 November 2016, at para. 56; Cyprus v Turkey, HUDOC,
10 May 2001 (GC), at para. 219 (GC); Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy, HUDOC, 17 January
2002 (GC), at paras. 49 & 51.
26
Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
HUDOC, 13 October 2016, at paras. 26 & 33; Halime Kılıç v Turkey, HUDOC, 28 June
2016, at paras. 101–2; Kasap and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 14 January 2014, at paras. 57
& 60–1; Öneryildiz v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 November 2004 (GC), at paras. 92 & 96;
Menson and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 May 2003 (dec.), at para. 1; Sabukte-
kin v Turkey, HUDOC, 19 March 2002, at paras. 97–8; Osman v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 28 October 1998 (GC), at para. 115; McCann and Others v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 161.
27
Civek v Turkey, HUDOC, 23 February 2016, at paras. 65 & 66.
28
Ortsuyeva and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 22 November 2016, at paras. 93–4; Makayeva v
Russia, HUDOC, 18 September 2014, at paras. 104–6; Turluyeva v Russia, HUDOC,
20 June 2013, at paras. 83 & 99; Aslakhanova and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 18 December
2012 at paras. 121–3; ER and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 31 July 2012 at paras. 80–2;
Varnava and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 September 2009 (GC), at para. 184; Ima-
kayeva v Russia, HUDOC, 9 November 2006, at paras. 139–43 Gongadze v Ukraine,
HUDOC, 8 November 2005, at paras. 164 & 170; Timurtaş v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 June
2000, at paras. 82–6.
29
Keller v Russia, HUDOC 17 October 2013, at paras. 81–3; Mižárová v Slovakia, HUDOC,
14 December 2010, at para. 89; Anguelova v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 13 June 2002, at para. 110;
Paul and Audrey Edwards v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 14 March 2002, at para. 56;
Salman v Turkey, HUDOC, 27 June 2000 (GC), at paras. 99 & 102–3.
30
Armani Da Silva v the United Kingdom, HUDOC, 20 March 2016 (GC), at paras. 283–8;
Ramsahai and Others v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 15 May 2007 (GC), at paras. 323–5;
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
Hugh Jordan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 4 May 2001, at paras. 105–9; McCann and
Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 161.
31
Ioniță v Romania, HUDOC, 10 January 2017, at para. 72; Isenc v France, HUDOC,
4 February 2016, at paras. 46 & 47; Šilih v Slovenia, HUDOC, 9 April 2009 (GC), at
para. 195; Dodov v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 17 January 2008, at paras. 80–3; Calvelli and Ciglio
v Italy, HUDOC, 17 January 2002 (GC), at para. 49.
32
Muradyan v Armenia, HUDOC, 24 November 2016, at para. 133; Ramsahai and Others v
the Netherlands, HUDOC, 15 May 2007 (GC), at paras. 323–5; McCann and Others v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 161.
33
Gerasimenko and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 1 December 2016, at para. 103; Nachova and
Others v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 6 July 2005 (GC), at para. 99; Makaratzis v Greece, HUDOC,
20 December 2004 (GC), at para. 59; McCann and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 150;
34
Tagayeva and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 13 April 2017, at para. 438; Talpis v Italy,
HUDOC, 2 March 2017, at para. 101; Hiller v Austria, HUDOC, 22 November 2016, at
para. 48; F. G. v Sweden, HUDOC, 23 March 2016 (GC), at paras. 155–8; Opuz v Turkey,
HUDOC, 9 June 2009, at paras. 128–30; Branko Tomašić and Others v Croatia, HUDOC,
15 January 2009, at paras. 50–1; Gongadze v Ukraine, HUDOC, 8 November 2005, at
para. 164; Keenan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 3 April 2001, at para. 90; Osman v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 October 1998 (GC), at para. 115.
35
Öneryildiz v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 November 2004 (GC), at para. 71; Guerra and Others v
Italy, HUDOC, 19 February 1998 (GC).
36
Budayeva and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 20 March 2008, at paras. 129–31 & 141–3.
37
Öneryildiz v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 November 2004 (GC), at para. 107; Paul and Audrey
Edwards v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 14 March 2002, at para. 55
38
Gross v Switzerland, HUDOC, 14 May 2013, at para. 69. See also: Gross v Switzerland,
HUDOC, 30 September 2014 (GC, dec.); Koch v Germany, HUDOC, 19 July 2012; Haas v
Switzerland, HUDOC, 20 January 2011.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
39
Pretty v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 April 2002, at paras. 39–41. See A. Pedain, ‘The
Human rights dimension of the Diane Pretty case’, Cambridge Law Journal, 62 (2003),
181–206.
40
H v Norway, HUDOC, 19 May 1992 (dec.); Paton v United Kingdom (1980) 19 D.R. 244;
Brüggemann and Scheuten v Germany, HUDOC, 19 May 1976. G. Hogan, ‘The right to
life and the abortion question under the European Convention on Human Rights’ in
L. Heffernan with J. Kingston (eds.), Human Rights: A European Perspective (Blackrock:
Round Hall Press, 1994), pp. 104–16.
41
HUDOC, 8 July 2004 (GC). A further five judges agreed with the majority’s decision but
disputed the application of Art. 2, two others agreed with the majority verdict in spite of
concluding that Art. 2 did apply while three judges dissented from the majority (two of
whom delivered a joint opinion) on the grounds that Art. 2 had been violated.
42
A, B and C v Ireland, HUDOC, 16 December 2010 (GC), at para. 112.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
43
McCann and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 149.
See also Giuliani and Gaggio v Italy, HUDOC, 24 March 2011 (GC), at paras. 175–6;
Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia, HUDOC, 24 February 2005, at paras. 169, 172
& 191; McShane v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 May 2002, at para. 93; Oğur v Turkey,
HUDOC, 20 May 1999 (GC), at para. 78.
44
Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia, HUDOC, 24 February 2005, at para. 168;
Andronicou & Constantinou v Cyprus, HUDOC, 9 October 1997, at para. 171; McCann
and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 147.
45
Stewart v United Kingdom (1984) 39 D.R. 162, at para. 13.
46
See also Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia, HUDOC, 24 February 2005, at
para. 171.
47
Hassan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 16 September 2014 (GC), at paras. 77 & 102–3.
48
Finogenov and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 20 December 2011, at paras. 268–72; Isayeva,
Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia, HUDOC, 24 February 2005, at paras. 209–24; Tepe v
Turkey, HUDOC, 9 May 2003, at paras. 177–82.
49
Tagayeva and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 13 April 2017, at para. 574; Finogenov and
Others v Russia, HUDOC, 20 December 2011 at para. 266; Nachova and Others v
Bulgaria, HUDOC, 6 July 2005 (GC), at para. 95; Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v
Russia, HUDOC, 24 February 2005, at paras. 174–6; McCann and Others v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at paras. 150 & 200–1.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
50
Giuliani and Gaggio v Italy, HUDOC, 24 March 2011 (GC), at paras. 178 & 191; McCann
and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at para. 200.
51
McCann and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 September 1995 (GC), at paras.
195–214.
52
Some of the provisions found in the Protocols also take the form of unqualified prohib-
itions, for example, deprivation of liberty merely because of inability to fulfil a contractual
obligation (Art. 1 of Protocol No. 4); the expulsion of nationals from, or refusal of entry
to, their national state (Art. 3 of Protocol No. 4); the collective expulsion of aliens (Art. 4
of Protocol No. 4); and the death penalty (Arts. 1 of Protocol No. 13). But not all Council
of Europe states have agreed to be bound by these Protocols and there is very little case
law on any.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
53
Ali Güneș v Turkey, HUDOC, 10 April 2012, at paras. 34–43.
54
See Wainwright v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 26 September 2006, at para. 46.
55
Irina Smirnova v Ukraine, HUDOC, 13 October 2016, at para. 70; Abdu v Bulgaria,
HUDOC, 11 March 2014, at para. 40; Opuz v Turkey, HUDOC, 9 June 2009, at paras. 159
& 176; Z and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 10 May 2001 (GC), at para. 73;
Mahmut Kaya v Turkey, HUDOC, 28 March 2000, at para. 115.
56
The ‘extra-judicial transfer of persons from one jurisdiction or state to another for the
purpose of detention and interrogation outside the normal legal system where there is a
real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment’, Nasr and Ghali v Italy, HUDOC,
23 February 2016, at paras. 288–91.
57
Paposhvili v Belgium, HUDOC, 13 December 2016 (GC), at paras. 174 & 181; J. K. and
Others v Sweden, HUDOC, 23 August 2016 (GC), at para. 79; MYH and Others v Sweden,
HUDOC, 27 June 2013, at para. 52; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
2 March 2010, at para. 123; Soering v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 July 1989, paras. 88 &
91. The Court has been prepared to accept assurances by the receiving state that this will
not happen. See, e.g., decision on inadmissibility in Aswat v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
6 January 2015 (dec.), at paras. 29–31.
58
Beortegui Martinez v Spain, HUDOC, 31 May 2016, at para. 47; Alpar v Turkey,
HUDOC, 26 January 2016, at para. 50.
59
Jeronovičs v Latvia, HUDOC, 5 July 2016 (GC), at paras. 103–6; Abdu v Bulgaria,
HUDOC, 11 March 2014, at paras. 41–3; Gäfgen v Germany, HUDOC, 1 June 2010
(GC), at paras. 116–19; Opuz v Turkey, HUDOC, 9 June 2009, at 168; Assenov and Others
v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 28 October 1998, at para. 102.
60
See J. Vorhaus, ‘On degradation. Part one. Article 3 of the European Convention on
Human Rights’, Common Law World Review, 31 (2002), 374–99 and ‘On degradation.
Part two. Degrading treatment and punishment’, Common Law World Review 32 (2003),
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
69
Korneykova and Korneykov v Ukraine, HUDOC, 24 March 2016, at paras. 165 & 166;
Svinarenko and Slyadnev v Russia, HUDOC, 17 July 2014 (GC), at para. 117; Erdoğan
Yağiz v Turkey, HUDOC, 6 March 2007, at paras. 45–8.
70
Cyprus v Turkey, HUDOC, 10 May 2001 (GC), at para. 305.
71
Z. A. and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 28 March 2017, at paras. 102–11; Shioshvili and
Others v Russia, HUDOC, 20 December 2016, at paras. 81–6; VM and Others v Belgium,
HUDOC, 7 July 2015, at paras. 156–63; MSS v Belgium and Greece, HUDOC, 21 January
2011 (GC), at para. 263.
72
P and S v Poland, HUDOC, 30 January 2013, at paras. 163–4 & 168–9.
73
Taștan v Turkey, HUDOC, 4 March 2008, at paras. 27–33.
74
Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 March 1993, at paras. 31–2; Tyrer v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 April 1978, at paras. 32–5.
75
Elberte v Latvia, HUDOC, 13 January 2015, at paras. 137 & 140–3.
76
Kudła v Poland, HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC), at para. 92; Tekin v Turkey, HUDOC,
9 June 1998, at para. 52; Ireland v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 167.
77
Najafli v Azerbaijan, HUDOC, 2 October 2012, at paras. 39–41; Denizci and Others v
Cyprus, HUDOC, 21 May 2001, at paras. 329–42 & 384–7; Ribitsch v Austria, HUDOC,
4 December 1995, at para. 38; Tomasi v France, HUDOC, 27 August 1992, at para. 115.
78
Ireland v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at paras. 96 & 167–8.
79
Mađer v Croatia, HUDOC, 21 June 2011, at paras. 108 & 110.
80
Al Nashiri v Poland, HUDOC, 24 July 2014, at para. 577.
81
Virabyan v Armenia, HUDOC, 2 October 2012, at para. 156; Ireland v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 167.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
82
Dikme v Turkey, HUDOC, 11 July 2000, at paras. 91 & 96; Selmouni v France, HUDOC,
28 July 1999 (GC), at paras. 102 & 105; Greek Case, HUDOC, 5 November 1969
(Commission Decision) 12 YB 1, 504.
83
Aksoy v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 December 1996, at para. 64.
84
Zontul v Greece, HUDOC, 12 January 2012, at para. 91; Aydin v Turkey, HUDOC,
25 September 1997 (GC), at paras. 83 & 86.
85
Mikheyev v Russia, HUDOC, 26 January 2006, at para. 129; Akkoçv Turkey, HUDOC,
10 October 2000, at para. 116.
86
Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, HUDOC, 8 July 2004 (GC), at para. 438.
87
Akkoçv Turkey, HUDOC, 10 October 2000, at para. 116.
88
Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, HUDOC, 8 July 2004 (GC), at para. 435.
89
Aydin v Turkey, HUDOC, 25 September 1997 (GC), at paras. 80–7.
90
J. Simor and B. Emmerson, Q.C. (eds.), Human Rights Practice (London: Sweet &
Maxwell, 2000), para. 1.079.
91
Gäfgen v Germany, HUDOC, 1 June 2011 (GC). See S. Greer, ‘Should police threats to
torture suspects always be severely punished? Reflections on the Gäfgen case’, Human
Rights Law Review, 11 (2011), 67–89.
92
S. Greer, ‘Is the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment really
“absolute” in international human rights law?’ Human Rights Law Review, 15 (2015),
101–37.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
93
Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, HUDOC, 7 January 2010, at paras. 278–81. See also
Siliadin v France, HUDOC, 26 July 2005, at paras. 48–51.
94
Siliadin v France, HUDOC, 26 July 2005, at para. 122–4.
95
Stummer v Austria, HUDOC, 7 July 2011 (GC), at para. 118.
96
Reitmayr v Austria, HUDOC, 28 June 1995 (dec.); Van der Mussele v Belgium, HUDOC,
23 November 1983, at paras. 37–40; Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium, HUDOC, 24 June
1982, at paras. 57–60
97
Four Companies v Austria, HUDOC, 27 September 1976 (dec.).
98
Floroiu v Romania, HUDOC, 12 March 2013 (dec.) at paras. 17–21 & 35–7.
99
Meier v Switzerland, HUDOC, 9 February 2016, at para. 80.
100
Schuitemaker v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 4 May 2010 (dec.).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
101
JA v France, HUDOC, 27 May 2014 (dec.), at para. 37; Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia,
HUDOC, 7 January 2010, at para. 286; Siliadin v France, HUDOC, 26 July 2005, at
paras. 84 & 89.
102
El Masri v The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, HUDOC, 13 December 2012
(GC), at paras. 230–3; Austin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 March 2012 (GC), at
para. 58; İ Bilgin v Turkey, HUDOC, 17 July 2001, at para. 149; Engel and Others v the
Netherlands, HUDOC, 8 June 1976, at para. 58. See R. Kolb, ‘The jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights on detention and fair trial in criminal matters from
1992 to the end of 1998’, Human Rights Law Journal, 21 (2000), 348–73.
103
Austin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 March 2012 (GC), at paras. 53–60; Gillan and
Quinton v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 12 January 2010, at para. 57; Guzzardi v Italy,
HUDOC, 6 November 1980, paras. 92–5.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
104
See, for example, ER and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 31 July 2012; Kurt v Turkey,
HUDOC, 25 May 1998.
105
Art. 5(1)(a). James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 September 2012, at
paras. 188 & 197; Weeks v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 2 March 1987, at para. 61; Van
Droogenbroeck v Belgium, HUDOC, 24 June 1982, at para. 39.
106
Art. 5(1) (b). X v Germany (1975) 3 D.R. 92.
107
Art. 5(1)(b). Ostendorf v Germany, HUDOC, 7 March 2013, at paras. 69 & 90–103;
Ciulla v Italy, HUDOC, 22 February 1989, at paras. 41–2.
108
Gusinskiy v Russia, HUDOC, 19 May 2004, at para. 53; O’Hara v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 16 October 2001, at para. 38; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 30 August 1990, at para. 32; Brogan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 Novem-
ber 1988, at para. 53.
109
Art. 5(1)(c). Kasparov v Russia, HUDOC, 11 October 2016, at paras. 51–4; ; Ostendorf v
Germany, HUDOC, 7 March 2013, at para. 66; Schwabe and MG v Germany, HUDOC,
1 December 2011, paras. 70, 72 & 77–80.
110
Art. 5(1).
111
Art. 5(1)(d). Blokhin v Russia, HUDOC, 23 March 2016 (GC), at paras. 171 & 172;
Bouamar v Belgium, HUDOC, 29 February 1988, at paras. 48 & 52–3.
112
Art. 5 (1)(e). Enhorn v Sweden, HUDOC, 25 January 2005, at paras. 43–6 & 55–6.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
113
Art. 5 (1)(e). Ruslan Makarov v Russia, HUDOC, 11 October 2016, at paras. 20–5;
Bergmann v Germany, HUDOC, 7 January 2016, at paras. 133 & 134; Radu v Germany,
HUDOC, 16 May 2013, at paras. 105–8; Varbanov v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 5 October 2000,
at para. 46; Winterwerp v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 24 October 1979, paras. 39 & 41.
114
Art. 5 (1)(e). Gukovych v Ukraine, HUDOC, 20 October 2016, at para. 51; Witold Litwa
v Poland, HUDOC, 4 April 2000, at paras. 61–2.
115
Art. 5 (1)(e). De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp (“Vagrancy”) v Belgium, HUDOC, 18 June
1971, at paras. 69–70.
116
Schabas, European Convention, p. 243.
117
Art. (5(1)(f).
118
Saadi v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 January 2008 (GC), at paras. 66 & 78–80.
119
Khlaifia and Others v Italy, HUDOC, 15 December 2016 (GC), at paras. 90 – 92; A and
Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 19 February 2009 (GC), at para. 171; Chahal v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 November 1996 (GC), at paras. 112–19; Bozano v France,
HUDOC, 18 December 1986, at paras. 59–60.
120
Assanidze v Georgia, HUDOC, 8 April 2004 (GC), at para. 170; Čonka v Belgium,
HUDOC, 5 February 2002, at para. 42; Dougoz v Greece, HUDOC, 6 March 2001, at
para. 61; Chahal v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 November 1996 (GC), at para. 127;
Ireland v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 194.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
121
Ruslan Makarov v Russia, HUDOC, 11 October 2016, at para. 28; Creangă v Romania,
23 January 2012 (GC), at para. 101.
122
Oleynik v Russia, HUDOC, 21 June 2016, at paras. 38–9.
123
Lelyuk v Ukraine, HUDOC, 17 November 2016, at paras. 43–6; El Masri v The Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, HUDOC, 13 December 2012 (GC), at para. 230; James,
Wells and Lee v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 September 2012, at para. 195; Creangă v
Romania, 23 January 2012 (GC), at para. 120; Medvedyev v France, HUDOC, 29 March
2010 (GC), at para. 80; Saadi v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 January 2008 (GC), at
para. 70; Denizci and Others v Cyprus, HUDOC, 21 May 2001, at paras. 392–3; Kurt v
Turkey, HUDOC, 25 May 1998, at para. 124.
124
Khlaifia and Others v Italy, HUDOC, 15 December 2016 (GC), at para. 131; Derungs v
Switzerland, HUDOC, 10 May 2016, at paras. 53–6; Hutchinson and Reid v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 20 February 2003, at para. 64.
125
A and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 19 February 2009 (GC), at paras. 204 &
219–20; Garcia Alva v Germany, HUDOC, 13 February 2001, at paras. 39 & 42–3.
126
Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium, HUDOC, 24 June 1982, at para. 48.
127
Art. 5(2). Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 30 August 1990, at
para. 41.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
128
Bezicheri v Italy, HUDOC, 25 October 1989, at paras. 20–3; Winterwerp v the Nether-
lands, HUDOC, 24 October 1979, at para. 55.
129
Hood v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 February 1999 (GC), at paras. 50 & 57–8;
Schiesser v Switzerland, HUDOC, 4 December 1979, at paras. 29–31.
130
Art. 5(3). McKay v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 3 October 2006 (GC), at para. 47; Brogan
v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 November 1988, at paras. 59 & 62; De Jong, Baljet and
Van Den Brink v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 22 May 1984, at para. 51; Winterwerp v the
Netherlands, HUDOC, 24 October 1979, at paras. 42 & 49; Stogmüller v Austria,
HUDOC, 10 November 1969, at paras. 2 & 13–16 of the section ‘As to the law’.
131
Buzadji v the Republic of Moldova, HUDOC, 5 July 2016 (GC), at paras. 87–8 & 92–102;
Idalov v Russia, HUDOC, 22 May 2012 (GC), at para. 140; Wemhoff v Germany,
HUDOC, 27 June 1968, at para. 12.
132
Letellier v France, HUDOC, 26 June 1991, at paras. 37–53; Matznetter v Austria,
HUDOC, 10 November 1969, at paras. 8–9; Stogmüller v Austria, HUDOC, 10 Novem-
ber 1969, at para. 15 of the section ‘As to the law’; Wemhoff v Germany, HUDOC,
27 June 1968, at paras. 13–14.
133
Chraidi v Germany, HUDOC, 26 October 2006, at para. 37; Brogan v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 29 November 1988, at para. 62.
134
Al-Jedda v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 July 2011, at para. 99; Winterwerp v the
Netherlands, HUDOC, 24 October 1979, at para. 37.
135
Winterwerp v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 24 October 1979, at para. 40.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
136
Kolb, ‘Jurisprudence’, 361.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
137
Jussila v Finland, HUDOC, 23 November 2006 (GC), at para. 40; Campbell and Fell v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 June 1984, at para. 87.
138
Whitfield and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 12 April 2005, at para. 43.
139
König v Germany, HUDOC, 28 June 1978, at para. 95; Ringeisen v Austria, HUDOC,
16 July 1971, at para. 94.
140
Ferrazzini v Italy, HUDOC, 12 July 2001 (GC), at para. 29.
141
Engel and Others v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 8 June 1976, at paras. 80–3.
142
Öztürk v Germany, HUDOC, 21 February 1984, at para. 52; Engel and Others v the
Netherlands, HUDOC, 8 June 1976, at paras. 80 & 82.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
143
Wilson v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 May 1998 (dec.).
144
Sismanidis and Sitaridis v Greece, HUDOC, 9 June 2016, at para. 67; L. E. v Greece,
HUDOC, 21 January 2016, at para. 97.
145
Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v Romania, HUDOC, 29 November 2016 (GC),
at paras. 142–3; Moiseyev v Russia, HUDOC, 9 October 2008, at para. 189; Scordino v
Italy (No. 1), HUDOC, 29 March 2006 (GC), at paras. 222–7; Frydlender v France,
HUDOC, 27 June 2000, at para. 43; König v Germany, HUDOC, 28 June 1978, at
para. 99; Neumeister v Austria, HUDOC, 27 June 1968, at paras. 20–1 of the section
‘As to the law’.
146
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 440.
147
Chaushev and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 25 October 2016, at para. 23; B and P v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 24 April 2001, at paras. 45–8; Werner v Austria, HUDOC,
24 November 1997, at para. 55; Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 June
1984, at paras. 87–8; Pretto and Others v Italy, HUDOC, 8 December 1982, at paras.
26–7.
148
Jones and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 14 January 2014, at paras. 186 & 189.
149
B and P v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 24 April 2001, at para. 37.
150
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 434.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
151
Kostovski v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 20 November 1989, at para. 44.
152
Diennet v France, HUDOC, 26 September 1995, at para. 34.
153
Stallinger and Kuso v Austria, HUDOC, 23 April 1997, at para. 51.
154
Van de Hurk v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 19 April 1994, at para. 45; Belilos v Switzer-
land, HUDOC, 29 April 1988, at para. 64.
155
Incal v Turkey, HUDOC, 9 June 1998 (GC), at para. 65; Langborger v Sweden, HUDOC,
22 June 1989, at paras. 32 & 35; Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 June
1984, at para. 78.
156
Incal v Turkey, HUDOC, 9 June 1998 (GC), at paras. 67–73.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
157
Sramek v Austria, HUDOC, 22 October 1984, at paras. 38 & 41–2.
158
Micallef v Malta, HUDOC, 15 October 2009 (GC) at para. 93; Sigurðsson v Iceland,
HUDOC, 10 April 2003, at paras. 39–46; Demicoli v Malta, HUDOC, 27 August 1991, at
paras. 41–2.
159
Micallef v Malta, HUDOC, 15 October 2009 (GC) at para. 102; Piersack v Belgium,
HUDOC, 1 October 1982, at para. 31.
160
McGonnell v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 8 February 2000, at para. 57.
161
Zubac v Croatia, HUDOC, 11 October 2016, at para. 40; Sander v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 9 May 2000, at paras. 23 & 32–3; Gregory v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
25 February 1997, at paras. 45 & 49; Remli v France, HUDOC, 23 April 1996, at paras.
46–8.
162
Perez v France, HUDOC, 12 February 2004 (GC), at para. 64; See, e.g., Barberà,
Messequé and Jabardo v Spain, HUDOC, 6 December 1988, at para. 89, where the
cumulative effect of a number of procedural irregularities was deemed to have rendered
a criminal trial unfair.
163
Dulaurans v France, HUDOC, 21 March 2000, at para. 33.
164
Brumărescu v Romania, HUDOC, 28 October 1999 (GC), at para. 61.
165
Lhermitte v Belgium, HUDOC, 29 November 2016 (GC), at paras. 67 & 80–4; Hadjia-
nastassiou v Greece, HUDOC, 16 December 1992, at para. 33.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
166
Urbšienė and Urbšys v Lithuania, HUDOC, 8 November 2016, at paras. 43–6; Ibrahim
and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 September 2016 (GC), at paras. 266–9; Steel
and Morris v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 February 2005, at paras. 61–2; Aćimović v
Croatia, HUDOC, 9 October 2003, at para. 29.
167
Gökbulut v Turkey, HUDOC, 29 March 2016, at paras. 69–72; Vermeulen v Belgium,
HUDOC, 20 February 1996 (GC), at para. 33; Feldbrugge v the Netherlands, HUDOC,
29 May 1986, at paras. 42–4.
168
Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v Switzerland, HUDOC, 21 June 2016 (GC),
at paras. 151 & 155; Ternovskis v Latvia, HUDOC, 29 April 2014, at paras. 65 & 72; Steel
and Morris v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 February 2005, at paras. 62 & 72; Kress v
France, HUDOC, 7 June 2001 (GC), at para. 72; Dombo Beheer BV v the Netherlands,
HUDOC, 27 October 1993, at paras. 33 & 35; Feldbrugge v the Netherlands, HUDOC,
29 May 1986, at para. 44.
169
Sejdovic v Italy, HUDOC, 1 March 2006 (GC), at para. 86; Colozza v Italy, HUDOC,
12 February 1985, at para. 28.
170
Gómez Olmeda v Spain, HUDOC, 29 March 2016, at paras. 36–40; T v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 16 December 1999 (GC), at paras. 83–4; Feldbrugge v the Netherlands,
HUDOC, 29 May 1986, at para. 44.
171
Gäfgen v Germany, HUDOC, 1 June 2010 (GC), at para. 178; Ramanauskas v Lithuania,
HUDOC, 5 February 2008 (GC), at para. 51; Jalloh v Germany, HUDOC, 11 July 2006
(GC), at para. 94; Khan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 12 May 2000, at para. 34.
172
Khamidov v Russia, HUDOC, 15 November 2007, at para.174.
173
Jalloh v Germany, HUDOC, 11 July 2006 (GC), at para. 101; Weh v Austria, HUDOC,
8 April 2004, at paras. 39–43; Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland, HUDOC, 21 December
2000, at para. 48; John Murray v United Kingdom, 8 February 1996 (GC), at paras. 45–6.
174
See, e.g., National and Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and
Yorkshire Building Society v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 23 October 1997, at paras. 75–6
& 112–13.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
175
Turyev v Russia, HUDOC, 11 October 2016, at para. 21; Stoyanov and Others v Bulgaria,
HUDOC, 31 March 2016, paras. 106–8; Allen v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 12 July 2013
(GC), at paras. 125–6 & 134–5; Sekanina v Austria, HUDOC, 25 August 1993, at paras.
29–30; Minelli v Switzerland, HUDOC, 25 March 1983 at para. 37.
176
Salabiaku v France, HUDOC, 7 October 1988, at paras. 28–30.
177
John Murray v United Kingdom, 8 February 1996 (GC), at para. 54.
178
Iasir v Belgium, HUDOC, 26 January 2016, at paras. 32 & 33; X v Austria, HUDOC,
30 May 1967 (dec.).
179
X v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 23 March 1972 (dec.).
180
Harris et al., Law of European Convention, at 461.
181
Mattoccia v Italy, HUDOC, 25 July 2000, at paras. 59–60; Péllister and Sassi v France,
HUDOC, 25 March 1999 (GC), at paras. 51 & 62; Kamasinski v Austria, HUDOC,
19 December 1989, at paras. 78–86.
182
Moiseyev v Russia, HUDOC, 9 October 2008, at paras. 224–5; Albert and Le Compte v
Belgium, HUDOC, 10 February 1983, at para. 41
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
with this provision, Article 6(3)(c) provides the accused with the right to
defend themselves in person, or with effective legal assistance183 of their
own choosing, freely provided where they lack sufficient means and where
the interests of justice, including what is at stake for the applicant, the
complexity of the case and doubts about the capacity of any accused to
defend themselves adequately, so require.184 Restrictions may, however, be
justified in pursuit of the interests of justice, security and the safety of
others.185 The accused also have the right under Article 6(3)(d) to obtain
the attendance of, examine and cross-examine witnesses under the same
conditions as the prosecution, except for those who – for legitimate
reasons, including death or intimidation, and subject to sufficient coun-
terbalancing factors – provide evidence but do not testify.186 Finally, a
right to a competent interpreter, which is not means tested and also applies
to the translation of documents, is provided by Article 6(3)(e).187
183
Öcalan v Turkey, HUDOC, 12 May 2005 (GC), at para. 135; Artico v Italy, HUDOC,
13 May 1980, at paras. 34–7.
184
Twalib v Greece, HUDOC, 9 June 1998, at paras. 46 & 52–4; Granger v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 28 March 1990, at para. 44.
185
Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 September 2016 (GC), at paras.
258–9; Ibrahim and Others v the United Kingdom, HUDOC, 16 December 2014, at
para. 193; Salduz v Turkey, HUDOC, 27 November 2008 (GC), at para. 55.
186
Manucharyan v Armenia, HUDOC, 24 November 2016, at paras. 45–8; Schatschaschwili
v Germany, HUDOC, 15 December 2015 (GC) at paras. 107 & 119; Al-Khawaja and
Tahery v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 December 2011 (GC), at paras. 120–5, 146–7
& 152.
187
Cuscani v United Kingdom HUDOC, 24 September 2002, at paras. 37–40; Kamasinski v
Austria, HUDOC, 19 December 1989, at para. 74.
188
Veeber v Estonia (No. 2), HUDOC, 21 January 2003, at paras. 30–1; Kokkinakis v Greece,
HUDOC, 25 May 1993, at para. 52.
189
Scoppola v Italy (No 2), HUDOC, 17 September 2009 (GC), at paras. 106 & 109.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
190
K-H W v Germany, HUDOC, 22 March 2001 (GC), at paras. 44–6 & 114; Streletz,
Kessler and Krenz v Germany, HUDOC, 21 February 2001 (GC), at paras. 8, see also
concurring opinion of Judge Zupancic; Welch v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 9 February
1995, at paras. 27–35.
191
Contrada v Italy (No. 3), HUDOC, 14 April 2015.
192
Rohlena v Czech Republic, HUDOC, 27 January 2015 (GC), at paras. 63–4 & 69.
193
Dallas v the United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 February 2016, at paras. 77 & 78; Rohlena v
Czech Republic, HUDOC, 27 January 2015 (GC), at paras. 57–64; Del Rio Prada v Spain,
HUDOC, 21 October 2013 (GC), at para. 93; Camilleri v Malta, HUDOC, 22 January
2013, at para. 43; Kononov v Latvia, HUDOC, 17 May 2010 (GC), at para. 185; Korbely v
Hungary, HUDOC, 19 September 2008 (GC), at para. 71; Kafkaris v Cyprus, HUDOC,
12 February 2008, at para. 140; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v Germany, HUDOC,
21 February 2001 (GC), at para. 85; SW v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 22 November
1995, at para. 36. For the principle of foreseeability in relation to heavier penalties see
Achour v France, HUDOC, 29 March 2006 (GC), at paras. 35–7.
194
Del Rio Prada v Spain, HUDOC, 21 October 2013 (GC), paras. 115–17; SW v United
Kingdom, HUDOC 22 November 1995, at para. 44.
195
Kononov v Latvia, HUDOC, 17 May 2010 (GC) at para. 213 & 238–44; Korbely v
Hungary, HUDOC, 19 September 2008 (GC), at paras. 78–85.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
196
Art. 2 of Protocol No. 4 provides rights to freedom of movement, choice of residence and
departure from any country, subject to a general ‘public interest’ exception, plus specific
public interest restrictions similar to those found in Art. 8–11, and the rights and
freedoms of others. However, it has been the subject of very few judgments.
197
See W. B. Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire – Britain and the Genesis of the
European Convention (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 715; A. McHarg, ‘Reconciling
human rights and the public interest: Conceptual problems and doctrinal uncertainty in
the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’, Modern Law Review, 62
(1999), 671–96 at 685–95; S. Greer, The Exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Human Rights Files No. 15,
1997), pp. 42–4; F. G. Jacobs, ‘The “limitation clauses” of the European Convention on
Human Rights’ in A. de Mestral, S. Birks, M. Bothe, I. Cotler, D. Klinck and A. Morel
(eds.), The Limitation of Human Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (Cowansville,
Canada: Les Éditions Yvon Blais, 1986), pp. 21–40; B. Hovius, ‘The limitation clauses of
the European Convention on Human Rights: A guide for the application of Section 1 of
the Charter?’, Ottawa Law Review, 17 (1985), 213–61. For a discussion of limitation
clauses in rights documents generally see M. E. Badar, ‘Basic principles governing limita-
tions on individual rights and freedoms in human rights instruments’, International
Journal of Human Rights, 7 (2003), 63–92.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
198
Şerife Yiğit v Turkey, HUDOC, 2 November 2010 (GC), at paras. 97–8. X, Y and Z v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 22 April 1997 (GC), at para. 36.
199
Van der Heijden v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 3 April 2012 (GC), at para. 50; Şerife Yiğit
v Turkey, HUDOC, 2 November 2010 (GC), at paras. 95–6; Schalk and Kopf v Austria,
HUDOC, 24 June 2010, at paras. 93–4; X, Y and Z v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 22 April
1997 (GC), at para. 36.
200
Marckx v Belgium, HUDOC, 13 June 1979, at para. 31.
201
Schneider v Germany, HUDOC, 15 September 2011, at para. 83; Boughanemi v France,
HUDOC, 24 April 1996, at paras. 32–5.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
have a family life with their children, though not with each other.202
Depending upon the circumstances, children taken into care may
become part of the family life of foster parents203 or remain part of the
family life of their natural parents.204 Family life also includes same-sex
couples who adopt or live with the child, or children, of one partner,205
and may also include the relationship between siblings and between
children and other relatives.206 While the Strasbourg authorities regard
the formal official recognition of parentage as part of the ‘family life’
element of Article 8,207 procedures for establishing paternity have been
considered under ‘private life’.208
‘Respect’ for family life also involves positive obligations to provide
appropriate legal recognition and procedures, for example, regarding
adoption,209 rights of succession,210 plus custody and rights of access to
children following divorce.211 The ‘rights and freedoms of others’ and the
‘prevention of disorder and crime’ are often pleaded by states to defend
claims that, although the right to respect for family life may have been
infringed, it has not been violated. For example, in cases where parents
complain about the authorities taking their children into care, or about
limitations upon rights of access thereafter, the Strasbourg institutions
have required – subject to the paramountcy of the best interests of the
child, the principle of proportionality, proper consideration of parental
rights and the margin of appreciation – that fair bureaucratic procedures
are followed and that convincing reasons have been provided.212 The
202
Berrehab v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 21 June 1988, at para. 21.
203
Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy, HUDOC, 24 January 2017 (GC), at paras. 148–9;
Gaskin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 July 1989, at paras. 36–7
204
Kearns v France, HUDOC, 10 January 2008, at paras. 72 & 74.
205
Schalk and Kopf v Austria, HUDOC, 24 June 2010, at para. 91; Elzholz v Germany,
HUDOC, 13 July 2000 (GC), at para. 43.
206
Moustaquim v Belgium, HUDOC, 18 February 1991, at para. 36; Marckx v Belgium,
HUDOC, 13 June 1979, at para. 45.
207
X, Y and Z v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 22 April 1997 (GC), at paras. 42–4 & 52;
Marckx v Belgium, HUDOC, 13 June 1979, at para. 31.
208
Paulík v Slovakia, HUDOC, 10 October 2006, at paras. 41–2; Rasmussen v Denmark,
HUDOC, 28 November 1984, at para. 33.
209
Wagner and JMWL v Luxembourg, HUDOC, 28 June 2007, at paras. 121, 123–4 &
133–5.
210
Marckx v Belgium, HUDOC, 13 June 1979, at paras. 49–59.
211
Hokkanen v Finland, HUDOC, 23 September 1994, at paras. 56 & 60–2.
212
Soares de Melo v Portugal, HUDOC, 16 February 2016, at paras. 118–23; X v Croatia,
HUDOC, 17 July 2008, at paras. 48–55; K and T v Finland, HUDOC, 12 July 2001 (GC),
at paras. 166–70; Olsson v Sweden (No. 1), HUDOC, 24 March 1998, at paras. 80–3.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
213
Üner v Netherlands, HUDOC, 18 October 2006 (GC), at paras. 44–5 & 62; Beldjoudi v
France, HUDOC, 26 March 1992, at paras. 64 & 74–80.
214
Moustaquim v Belgium, HUDOC, 18 February 1991, at paras. 41–7.
215
This is a re-working of a distinction drawn by N. Moreham, ‘The right to respect for
private life in the European Convention on Human Rights: A re-examination’, European
Human Rights Law Review, [2008], 44–79.
216
MAK and RK v United Kingdom, HUODC, 23 March 2010, at paras. 75 & 78–9; Bogumil
v Portugal, HUDOC, 7 October 2008, at paras. 83–91.
217
Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 March 1993, at paras. 35–6.
218
Colon v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 15 May 2012 (dec.), at para. 65; Gillan and Quinton v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 12 January 2010, at paras. 64–5; Wainwright v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 26 September 2006, at para. 46.
219
Biržietis v Lithuania, HUDOC, 14 June 2016, at para. 58.
220
Otgon v the Republic of Moldova, HUDOC, 25 October 2016, at para. 15; Hatton and
Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 8 July 2003 (GC), at paras. 98 & 119; López Ostra v
Spain, HUDOC, 9 December 1994, paras. 16–22.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
221
Hajduova v Slovakia, HUDOC, 30 November 2010, at para. 46; X and Y v Netherlands,
28 March 1985, at paras. 23–7.
222
Knecht v Romania, HUDOC, 2 October 2012, at paras. 55–8; Funke v France, HUDOC,
25 February 1993, at para. 48; Niemietz v Germany, HUDOC, 16 December 1992, at paras.
29–33.
223
Surikov v Ukraine, HUDOC, 26 January 2017, at para. 75; Vukota-Bojić v Switzerland,
HUDOC, 18 October 2016, at paras. 58–9; Bremner v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 October
2015, at paras. 62–70; S and Marper v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 4 December 2008
(GC), at para. 67; Sciacca v Italy, HUDOC, 11 January 2005, at para. 25; Leander v
Sweden, HUDOC, 26 March 1987, at para. 48; Silver and Others v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 25 March 1983, at para. 84.
224
Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2), HUDOC, 7 February 2012 (GC), at paras. 95–8;
Mosley v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 10 May 2011, at para. 131; Sciacca v Italy, HUDOC,
11 January 2005, at para. 27; Von Hannover v Germany, HUDOC, 24 June 2004, at
paras. 50–3 & 59.
225
Bašić v Croatia, HUDOC, 25 October 2016, at paras. 32–6; Karabeyoğlu v Turkey,
HUDOC, 7 June 2016, at para. 96; Uzun v Germany, HUDOC, 2 September 2010, at
para. 46; Peck v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 January 2003, at para. 59–63; Kopp v
Switzerland, HUDOC, 22 March 1998, at para. 53; Klass and Others v Germany,
HUDOC, 6 September 1978, at para. 41.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
226
YY v Turkey, HUDOC, 10 March 2015, at paras. 57 & 65; L v Lithuania, HUDOC,
11 September 2007, at para. 56; Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 July
2002 (GC), at paras. 71 & 91–3.
227
A, B and C v Ireland, HUDOC, 16 December 2010 (GC), at paras. 248–9 & 253–68;
Tysiąc v Poland, HUDOC, 20 March 2007, at paras. 110 & 116–30.
228
Lambert and Others v France, HUDOC, 5 June 2015 (GC), at paras. 12, 181 & 183–84.
229
Gross v Switzerland, HUDOC, 14 May 2013, at para. 60 & 67; Haas v Switzerland,
HUDOC, 20 January 2011, at paras. 51 & 56; Pretty v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
29 April 2002, at para. 67.
230
ADT v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 31 July 2000, at paras. 32–3; Modinos v Cyprus, HUDOC,
22 April 1993, at paras. 17–24; Norris v Ireland, HUDOC, 26 October 1988, at paras. 38 &
46; Dudgeon v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 22 October 1981, at paras. 41 & 60.
231
Schalk and Kopf v Austria, HUDOC, 24 June 2010, at paras. 105 & 110.
232
Stübing v Germany, HUDOC, 12 April 2012, at paras. 61–7; Laskey, Jaggard and Brown
v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 19 February 1997, at para. 50.
233
Connors v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 May 2004, at paras. 86–95; Chapman v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 January 2001, at paras. 92–6 & 105–16.
234
McGinley and Egan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 9 June 1998, at paras. 96–103; Guerra
and Others v Italy, HUDOC, 19 February 1998 (GC), at paras. 56–60.
235
Odièvre v France, HUDOC, 13 February 2003 (GC), at paras. 44–9; Gaskin v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 July 1989, at para. 49.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
236
Kokkinakis v Greece, HUDOC, 25 May 1993, at para. 31.
237
Sinan Işik v Turkey, HUDOC, 2 February 2010, at para. 38; Buscarini v San Marino,
HUDOC, 18 February 1999 (GC), at para. 34.
238
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 10 June 2010, at para. 99;
Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v Russia, HUDOC, 5 October 2006, at para. 72;
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova, HUDOC, 13 December 2001,
at paras. 101 & 105; Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC), at
para. 62; Kokkinakis v Greece, HUDOC, 25 May 1993, at paras. 38 & 45.
239
Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 February 1982, at para. 36.
240
Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 February 2003
(GC), at paras. 98–9.
241
Pretty v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 April 2002, at para. 82.
242
M. Evans, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (Cambridge University
Press, 1997), p. 285.
243
Sinan Işik v Turkey, HUDOC, 2 February 2010, at para. 52; Nolan and K v Russia,
HUDOC, 12 February 2009, at para. 73; Folgerø and Others v Norway, HUDOC, 27 June
2007 (GC), at paras. 96–102 & 105; Kokkinakis v Greece, HUDOC, 25 May 1993, at
paras. 31 & 51.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
lead it244 or about its truth or falsity, including in the educational context
where Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 – the right of parents to ensure their
children are taught in conformity with their own religious and philo-
sophical convictions – may also arise.245 In some circumstances – for
example, requesting time off work to attend a religious festival –some
proof that the claimant genuinely subscribes to the faith in question may
be required.246 Positive obligations, exercisable on a non-discriminatory
basis,247 include granting religious and other views official recognition
and/or official registration where appropriate,248 decriminalising refusals
to undertake compulsory military service on well-founded conscientious
grounds and offering non-military alternatives instead,249 making
adequate provision for prisoners and others to practice their faith250
and protecting faith groups from harassment and physical attack.251
Providing these responsibilities are satisfactorily discharged, it is unlikely
that established religions, such as Anglicanism in England, and state
religions such as the Orthodox faith in Greece, will be condemned as
incompatible with Article 9.
244
Hasan and Eylem Zengin v Turkey, HUDOC, 9 October 2007, at para. 70; Metropolitan
Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova, HUDOC, 13 December 2001, at para. 117;
Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC), at paras. 78 & 82; Serif v
Greece, HUDOC, 14 December 1999, at para. 52.
245
Lautsi v Italy, HUDOC, 18 March 2011 (GC), at paras. 59–60; Folgerø and Others v
Norway, HUDOC, 27 June 2007 (GC), at para. 84.
246
Kosteski v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, HUDOC, 13 April 2006, at para. 39.
See also Wasmuth v Germany, HUDOC, 17 February 2011, at para. 61.
247
Cumhuriyetç Eğitim Ve Kültür Merkezi Vakfi v Turkey, HUDOC, 2 December 2014, at
para. 48.
248
İzzettin Doğan and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 26 April 2016 (GC), at para. 135;
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 10 June 2010, at para. 101;
Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia, HUDOC, 5 April 2007, at para. 83; Moscow
Branch of the Salvation of Army v Russia, HUDOC, 5 October 2006, at para. 74;
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v Moldova, HUDOC, 13 December
2001, at para. 105. This may have both symbolic and instrumental value since official
recognition is generally required for conducting legally valid marriages, often leads to tax
concessions and may also strengthen the case for state funding of schools in the faith
concerned. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 4 March 2014, at para. 30.
249
Savda v Turkey, HUDOC, 12 June 2012, at paras. 91–101; Bayatyan v Armenia,
HUDOC, 7 July 2011 (GC), at paras. 112 & 124–8.
250
Association for Solidarity with Jehovah Witnesses and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 24 May
2016, at paras. 103–8; Jakóbski v Poland, HUDOC, 7 December 2010, at paras. 52–5.
251
Karaahmed v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 24 February 2015, at para. 111; Members of the Gldani
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v Georgia, HUDOC, 3 May 2007, at paras.
133–5.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
252
Arrowsmith v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 16 May 1977 (dec.).
253
Pichon and Sajous v France, HUDOC, 2 October 2001 (dec.).
254
Valsamis v Greece, HUDOC, 18 December 1996, at paras. 37–8.
255
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at para. 82; Jakóbski v
Poland, HUDOC, 7 December 2010, at para. 45; Leyla Şahin v Turkey, HUDOC,
10 November 2005 (GC), at para. 78.
256
Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 10 June 2010, at paras.
128–30; Barankevich v Russia, HUDOC, 26 July 2007, at para. 34; Larissis v Greece,
HUDOC, 24 February 1998, at para. 45; Kokkinakis v Greece, HUDOC, 25 May 1993, at
para. 48.
257
Stedman v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 9 April 1997 (dec.).
258
Ahmad v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 126, at para. 11.
259
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at para. 83.
260
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at paras. 91–5.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
261
Those failing this test have included Kuznetsov v Russia, HUDOC, 11 January 2007, at
para. 74; Poltoratskiy v Ukraine, HUDOC, 29 April 2003, at para. 170.
262
Manoussakis v Greece, HUDOC, 26 September 1996, at para. 44.
263
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at para. 84; Cha’are
Shalom Ve Tsedek v France, HUDOC, 27 June 2000 (GC), at para. 84; Manoussakis v
Greece, HUDOC, 26 September 1996, at para. 44.
264
Chappell v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 14 July 1987 (dec.).
265
X v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 May 1976 (dec.).
266
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at para. 100.
267
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013.
268
Leyla Şahin v Turkey, HUDOC, 10 November 2005 (GC), at paras. 112–16. See also
Ahmet Arslan and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 23 February 2010, at para. 43; Köse and
Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 24 January 2006 (dec.); Kurtulmuş v Turkey, HUDOC,
24 January 2006 (dec.).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
269
Dahlab v Switzerland, HUDOC, 15 February 2001 (dec.).
270
El Morsli v France, HUDOC, 4 March 2008 (dec.); Phull v France, HUDOC, 11 January
2005 (dec.); X v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 12 July 1978 (dec.).
271
SAS v France, HUDOC, 1 July 2014 (GC), at paras. 121–2, 141–2 & 157. See also
Ebrahimian v France, HUDOC 26 November 2015, at paras. 54–72.
272
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at paras. 93–5.
273
Lautsi v Italy, HUDOC, 18 March 2011 (GC), at paras. 63–78.
274
Handyside v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 December 1976, at para. 49
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
275
Appleby and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 6 May 2003, at para. 39; Özgür
Gündem v Turkey, HUDOC, 16 March 2000, at paras. 42–6.
276
Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary, HUDOC, 8 November 2016 (GC), at para 156;
Kalda v Estonia, HUDOC, 19 January 2016, at paras. 48–54.
277
Rainey et al., The European Convention on Human Rights, p. 436.
278
Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v Romania, HUDOC, 17 December 2004 (GC), at para. 91;
Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark, HUDOC, 17 December 2004 (GC), at para. 91;
Prager and Oberschlick v Austria, HUDOC, 26 April 1995, at para. 31; Oberschlick v
Austria, HUDOC, 23 May 1991, at para. 58; Lingens v Austria, HUDOC, 8 July 1986, at
para. 42.
279
Semir Güzel v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 September 2016, at para. 29; M’Bala M’Bala v
France, HUDOC, 10 November 2015 (dec.), at para. 31; Gough v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 24 October 2014, at para. 147; Murat Vural v Turkey, HUDOC, 21 October
2014, at paras. 47–52; Tatár and Fáber v Hungary, HUDOC, 12 June 2012, at para. 29;
Perrin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 October 2005 (dec.); Hashman and Harrup v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 November 1999 (GC), at para. 28; Otto-Preminger-
Institut v Austria, HUDOC, 20 September 1994, at para. 43; Barthold v Germany,
HUDOC, 25 March 1985, para. 42; Handyside v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 December
1976, at para. 43.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
280
Vejdeland and Others v Sweden, HUDOC, 9 February 2012, at para. 55; Refah Partisi
(The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 February 2003 (GC), at para. 123.
281
M’Bala M’Bala v France, HUDOC, 10 November 2015 (dec.), at paras. 33 & 42–3;
Perinçek v Switzerland, HUDOC, 15 October 2015 (GC), at paras. 209–12; Garaudy v
France, HUDOC, 24 June 2006 (dec.); Lehideux and Isorni v France HUDOC, 23 Sep-
tember 1998 (GC), at paras. 47–53; Marais v France, HUDOC, 24 June 1996 (dec.).
282
Gündüz v Turkey HUDOC, 4 December 2003, at para. 51; Sürek v Turkey (No. 1),
HUDOC, 8 July 1999 (GC), at paras. 63–5; Karataş v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 July 1999
(GC), at paras. 51–4.
283
Perinçek v Switzerland, HUDOC, 15 October 2015 (GC), at para. 207; Leroy v France,
HUDOC, 2 October 2008, at paras. 38–9; Sürek v Turkey (No. 1), HUDOC, 8 July 1999
(GC), at para. 62; Ceylan v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 July 1999 (GC), at paras. 35–6; Jersild v
Denmark, HUDOC, 23 September 1994 (GC), at para. 34.
284
Karataş v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 July 1999 (GC), at para. 48; Vereinigung Demokratischer
Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v Austria, HUDOC, 19 December 1994, at para. 37;
Informationsverein Lentia v Austria, HUDOC, 24 November 1993, at para. 35.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
justification pleaded, the severity of the penalty will often be the deciding
factor in determining whether there has been a violation or not.285 It
should also be noted that, in addition to withholding licenses for broad-
casting, TV and cinema (expressly recognised by Article 10(1)), freedom
of expression can be restricted in much more varied ways than can the
interests protected by most other Convention rights, including by pre-
publication notification requirements,286 refusal of permission to pub-
lish,287 prior restraint,288 confiscation,289 criminal and civil sanctions,290
reprimands in disciplinary proceedings,291 orders to account for profits
and costs,292 compulsory withdrawal from sale,293 and attempts to
compel disclosure of journalists’ sources.294
The Strasbourg institutions have generally sought to identify and specify
relevant ‘duties and responsibilities’ according to the characteristics of the
applicant. So, for example, journalists, NGOs and campaigning organisa-
tions have an obligation to act with due diligence in seeking to provide
verifiably accurate and reliable information, and grounded opinion, in
good faith according to their professional ethics.295 Judges and lawyers
should maintain the authority and impartiality of the legal process by
285
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 February 2005, at paras. 94–6;
Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v Romania, 17 December 2004 (GC), at para. 116; Tolstoy
Miloslavsky v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 July 1995, at para. 51.
286
Mosley v The United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 September 2011, at para. 117; Observer and
Guardian v The United Kingdom, HUDOC, 26 November 1991, at para. 60.
287
Ulusoy and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 3 May 2007, at paras. 45–55; Vereniging Week-
blad Bluf! v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 9 February 1995, at paras. 8–9 & 45–6.
288
Mosley v United Kingdom, 10 May 2011, HUDOC, at para. 117; Gawęda v Poland,
HUDOC, 14 March 2002, at para. 35.
289
Kaos GL v Turkey, HUDOC, 22 November 2016, at para. 51; Otto-Preminger-Institut v
Austria, HUDOC, 20 September 1994, at para. 43.
290
Zana v Turkey, HUDOC, 25 November 1997 (GC), at paras. 52–3 & 61–2; Tolstoy
Miloslavsky v United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, at paras. 49–51.
291
Szanyi v Hungary, HUDOC, 8 November 2016, at para. 26; Steur v the Netherlands,
HUDOC, 28 October 2003, at paras. 44–6.
292
Times Newspapers and Neil v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 April 1991 (dec.).
293
Leempoel & S. A. Ed. Cine Revue v Belgium, HUDOC, 9 November 2006, at para. 84.
294
Financial Times Ltd and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 December 2009, at
paras. 46 & 56; Goodwin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 March 1996 (GC), at para. 28.
295
Kunitsyna v Russia, HUDOC, 13 December 2016, at para. 45; Dorota Kania v Poland
(No. 2), HUDOC, 4 October 2016, at paras. 63–6; Braun v Poland, HUDOC, 4 November
2014, at paras. 50–1; Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 and 2) v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
10 March 2009, at para. 42; Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 February
2005, at para. 90; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway, HUDOC, 20 May 1999 (GC), at
para. 65; Goodwin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 March 1996 (GC), at para. 39; Prager
and Oberschlick v Austria, HUDOC, 26 April 1995, at para. 37.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
296
Nikula v Finland, HUDOC, 21 March 2002, at paras. 45–6; Wille v Lichtenstein,
HUDOC, 28 October 1999 (GC), at paras. 59–60 & 70.
297
Karapetyan and Others v Armenia, HUDOC, 17 November 2016, at paras. 49 & 59;
Ahmed v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 2 September 1998, at para. 56; Vogt v Germany,
HUDOC, 26 September 1995 (GC), at para. 53.
298
Karácsony and Others v Hungary, HUDOC, 17 May 2016 (GC), at paras. 159–62.
299
Szanyi v Hungary, HUDOC, 8 November 2016, at para. 33; Willem v France, HUDOC,
10 December 2009, at para. 37.
300
De Diego Nafria v Spain, HUDOC, 14 March 2002, at para. 40
301
Semir Güzel v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 September 2016, at paras. 33–40; Telegraaf Media
Nederland Landelijke Media BV and Others v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 22 November
2012, at para. 90; Sanoma Uitgevers BV v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 14 September 2010
(GC), at para. 81; Markt Intern Verlag GmbH v Germany, HUDOC, 20 November 1989,
at paras. 29–30; Barthold v Germany, HUDOC, 25 March 1985, at para. 45; Sunday
Times v United Kingdom (No. 1), HUDOC, 26 April 1979, at para. 49.
302
Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV and Others v the Netherlands,
HUDOC, 22 November 2012, at paras. 90 & 97–102; Sanoma Uitgevers BV v the
Netherlands, HUDOC, 14 September 2010 (GC), at paras. 82 & 100.
303
Bilen and Çoruk v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 March 2016, at paras. 57–61.
304
Szél and Others v Hungary, HUDOC, 16 September 2014, at paras. 63 & 85; Mouvement
Raëlien Suisse v Switzerland, HUDOC, 13 July 2012 (GC), at para. 61; Ceylan v Turkey,
HUDOC, 8 July 1999 (GC), at para. 34; Piermont v France, HUDOC, 27 April 1995, at
para. 76; Castells v Spain, HUDOC, 23 April 1992, at paras. 42–3; Markt Intern Verlag
GmbH v Germany, HUDOC, 20 November 1989, at para. 33.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
305
Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 and 2) v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 10 March 2009, at
para. 45; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark, HUDOC, 17 December 2004 (GC), at
para. 79; Jersild v Denmark, HUDOC, 23 September 1994 (GC), at para. 31
306
Dammann v Switzerland, HUDOC, 25 April 2006, at para. 57; Giniewski v France,
HUDOC, 31 January 2006, at para. 55; IA v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 September 2005,
dissenting opinion of Judges Costa, Cabral Barreto and Jungwiert, at para. 6.
307
Leroy v France, HUDOC, 2 October 2008, at paras. 44–5; Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v
the Netherlands, HUDOC, 9 February 1995, at paras. 39–46; Brind and Others v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 9 May 1994 (dec.).
308
Wingrove v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 November 1996, at paras. 48–9 & 64; Otto-
Preminger-Institut v Austria, HUDOC, 20 September 1994, at para. 48; Müller v
Switzerland, HUDOC, 24 May 1988, at paras. 39–43; Handyside v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 7 December 1976, at para. 52.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
309
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, pp. 669–70; Rainey
et al., The European Convention on Human Rights, p. 457.
310
Leroy v France, HUDOC, 2 October 2008, at paras. 40–8; Klein v Slovakia, HUDOC,
31 October 2006, at paras. 52–4; Giniewski v France, HUDOC, 31 January 2006, at paras.
52–5; IA v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 September 2005, at paras. 25–32; Wingrove v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 November 1996, at paras. 59–64; Otto-Preminger-Institut v
Austria, HUDOC, 20 September 1994, at paras. 49 & 56; Müller v Switzerland, HUDOC,
24 May 1988, at paras. 42–4.
311
Axel Springer AG v Germany, HUDOC, 7 February 2012 (GC), at paras. 89–95; MGN
Ltd v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 January 2011, at para. 151; Egeland and Hanseid v
Norway, HUDOC, 16 April 2009, at para. 60.
312
Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v Portugal, HUDOC, 4 October 2016, at
paras. 37 & 40; Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2), HUDOC, 7 February 2012 (GC), at
paras. 102, 109 & 111; Axel Springer AG v Germany, HUDOC, 7 February 2012 (GC),
at paras. 91–2, 100–1 & 108; Von Hannover v Germany, HUDOC, 24 June 2004, at
paras. 60 & 63–5.
313
Oran v Turkey, HUDOC, 15 April 2014, at para. 51; Jacubowski v Germany, HUDOC,
23 June 1994, at para. 26; Markt Intern Verlag GmbH v Germany, HUDOC, 20 November
1989, at para. 33; Barthold v Germany, HUDOC, 25 March 1985, at paras. 28 & 55.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
314
Matúz v Hungary, HUDOC, 21 October 2014, at paras. 39–51; Guja v Moldova,
HUDOC, 23 February 2008 (GC), at paras. 72–8; Stoll v Switzerland, HUDOC,
10 December 2007 (GC), at paras. 112–62.
315
Egeland and Hanseid v Norway, HUDOC, 16 April 2009, at paras. 60 & 63; Worm v
Austria, HUDOC, 29 August 1997, at paras. 40, 50 & 54; Sunday Times v United
Kingdom (No. 1), HUDOC, 26 April 1979, at paras. 63–4 & 66.
316
Guja v Moldova, HUDOC, 23 February 2008 (GC), at paras. 74 & 91; De Haes and
Gijsels v Belgium, HUDOC, 24 February 1997, dissenting opinion of Judge Morenilla, at
para. 11.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
317
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 752.
318
Barankevich v Russia, HUDOC, 26 July 2007, at para. 32; The Gypsy Council and Others
v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 14 May 2002 (dec.); G v Germany, HUDOC, 6 March 1989
(dec.); Rassemblement Jurassien Unité Jurassienne v Switzerland, HUDOC, 10 October
1979 (dec.).
319
Identoba and Others v Georgia, HUDOC, 12 May 2015, at para. 94; United Macedonian
Organization Ilinden and Ivanov v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 20 October 2005, at paras.
114–15.
320
Gafgaz Mammadov v Azerbaijan, HUDOC, 15 October 2015, at para. 59; Kudrevičius
and Others v Lithuania, HUDOC, 15 October 2015 (GC), at para. 147; Çelik v Turkey
(No. 3), HUDOC, 15 November 2012, at para. 90; Berladir and Others v Russia,
HUDOC, 10 July 2012, at paras. 40–2
321
Oya Ataman v Turkey, HUDOC, 5 December 2006, at paras. 40–4; Ezelin v France,
HUDOC, 20 April 1991, at paras. 41 & 51–3.
322
Appleby and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 6 May 2003, at para. 41; Anderson v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 27 October 1997 (dec.).
323
Alekseyev v Russia, HUDOC, 21 October 2010, at para. 73; Stankov and United Mace-
donian Organization Ilinden v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 2 October 2001, at para. 86.
324
Kasparov and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 3 October 2013, at paras. 91 & 95; Cisse v
France, HUDOC, 9 April 2002, at para. 50.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
325
Cheall v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 May 1985 (dec.).
326
Mytilinaios and Kostakis v Greece, HUDOC, 3 December 2015, at para. 53 & 65–7.
327
Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 August 1981, at paras. 13 &
55–7.
328
McFeeley v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 May 1980 (dec.).
329
Sigurjónsson v Iceland, HUDOC, 30 June 1993, at para. 31.
330
Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium, HUDOC, 23 June 1981, at paras.
64–5.
331
House of Macedonian Civilisation v Greece, HUDOC, 9 July 2015, at paras. 20 & 44.
332
Redfearn v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 6 November 2012, at paras. 42 & 57.
333
Moscow Branch of the Salvation of Army v Russia, HUDOC, 5 October 2006, at paras.
86–7; Gorzelik and Others v Poland, HUDOC, 17 February 2004 (GC), at paras. 97–105;
Sidiropoulos and Others v Greece, HUDOC, 10 July 1998, at paras. 31–2 & 47.
334
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 716.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
335
Rainey et al., The European Convention on Human Rights, p. 454.
336
Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 December 1999 (GC), at
paras. 44–8; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 Janu-
ary 1998 (GC), at paras. 43 & 57–61; Socialist Party and Others v Turkey, HUDOC,
25 May 1998 (GC), at paras. 41 & 50–4.
337
Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 13 February 2003
(GC), at paras. 104–36. See also Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v Spain, HUDOC, 30 June
2009, at paras. 83 & 88–91.
338
Gorzelik and Others v Poland, HUDOC, 17 February 2004 (GC), at para. 92.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
339
Vona v Hungary, HUDOC, 9 July 2013, at paras. 55, 66–7 & 71.
340
Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v Romania, HUDOC, 9 July 2013 (GC), at paras. 172–3;
Federation of Offshore Workers’ Trade Unions v Norway, HUDOC, 27 June 2002 (dec.).
341
Demir and Baykara v Turkey, HUDOC, 12 November 2008 (GC), at paras. 147–54.
342
Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 27 February 2007, at para. 39; Sibson v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 20 April
1993, at paras. 29–30; Cheall v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 May 1985 (dec.).
343
Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, HUDOC, 11 January 2006 (GC), at para. 54, 58 &
76; Sigurjónsson v Iceland, HUDOC, 30 June 1993, at para. 41; Young, James and
Webster v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 13 August 1981, at paras. 55 & 65.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
344
Junta Rectora Del Ertzainen Nazional Elkartasuna (ERNE.) v Spain, HUDOC, 21 April
2015, at paras. 29 & 39.
345
Tüm Haber Sen and Çinar v Turkey, HUDOC, 21 February 2006, at para. 35; S v
Germany, HUDOC, 5 July 1984 (dec.).
346
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 762.
347
Marckx v Belgium, HUDOC, 13 June 1979, at para. 67.
348
Andersson v. Sweden, HUDOC, 4 March 1986 (dec.); B, R and J v Germany, HUDOC,
15 March 1984 (dec.).
349
Hamer v United Kingdom, HUDOC,13 December 1979, at para. 58.
350
O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 14 December 2010, at paras. 83–4;
Şerife Yiğit v Turkey, HUDOC, 2 November 2010 (GC), at para. 44; Rees v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 17 October 1986, at para. 50.
351
Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 July 2002 (GC), at paras. 100–1.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
352
Schalk and Kopf v Austria, HUDOC, 24 June 2010, at para. 105.
353
Babiarz v Poland, HUDOC, 10 January 2017, at paras. 49 & 54; Johnston and Others v
Ireland, HUDOC, 18 December 1986, at paras. 51–4.
354
SH and Others v Austria, HUDOC, 3 November 2011 (GC), at paras. 115–18.
355
EB v France, HUDOC, 22 January 2008 (GC), at para. 41.
356
Bubbins v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 17 March 2005 at para. 170; Kaya v Turkey,
HUDOC, 19 February 1998, at para. 107; Silver and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
25 March 1983, at para. 113.
357
De Souza Ribeiro v France, HUDOC, 13 December 2012 (GC), at para. 79; Hasan and
Chaush v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC), at para. 98; Kudła v Poland,
HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC), at para. 151; Klass and Others v Germany, HUDOC,
6 September 1978, para. 57.
358
Kudła v Poland, HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC), at para. 157; Kaya v Turkey, HUDOC,
19 February 1998, at paras. 106 & 108; Kurt v Turkey, HUDOC, 25 May 1998, at paras.
138–42; Aksoy v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 December 1996, at paras. 98–100.
359
L. E. v Greece, HUDOC, 21 January 2016, at paras. 99 & 100; Krasuski v Poland,
HUDOC, 14 June 2005, at para. 68; Kudła v Poland, HUDOC, 26 October 2000 (GC),
at paras. 159–60.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
fulfilled, it will not consider whether Article 13 itself has been violated.360
Article 13 does not create an obligation for the Convention to be incorpor-
ated into domestic legal systems – although this is now universal in some
form or other throughout member states. Nor does it require the Convention
compliance of legislation to be open to challenge at national level.361 Effective
implementation of Article 13 could contribute to alleviating the ECtHR’s
case management problems by enabling more complaints to be settled
domestically.362
360
Ramsahai v Netherlands, HUDOC, 15 May 2007 (GC), at paras. 362–3; but see, e.g., Nuri
Kurt v Turkey, HUDOC, 25 November 2005 at paras. 115–22.
361
James and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 February 1986, at para. 85.
362
See Chapter 2.
363
See e.g., O. Mjöll Arnardóttir, ‘Discrimination as a magnifying lens: Scope and ambit under
Article 14 and Protocol No. 12’ in E. Brems and J. Gerards (eds.), Shaping Rights in the
ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human
Rights (Cambridge Universtiy Press, 2013); R. Wintemute, ‘“Within the ambit”: How big is
the “gap” in Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights? Part 1’, European Human
Rights Law Review (2004), 366–82 and ‘Filling the Article 14 “gap”: Government ratification
and judicial control of Protocol No. 12 ECHR: Part 2’, European Human Rights Law Review
(2004), 484–99; O. M. Arnardóttir, Equality and Non-Discrimination under the European
Convention on Human Rights (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003); J. Schokkenbroek, ‘The
prohibition of discrimination in Article 14 of the convention and the margin of appreci-
ation’, Human Rights Law Journal, 19 (1998), 20–3; S. Livingstone, ‘Article 14 and the
prevention of discrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights’, European
Human Rights Law Review (1997), 25–34.
364
N. Grief, ‘Non discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights:
A critique of the United Kingdom government’s refusal to sign and ratify Protocol 12’,
European Law Review, 27 (2002), 3–18.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
365
DH and Others v Czech Republic, HUDOC, 13 November 2007 (GC), at paras. 175–6,
189 & 195.
366
Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v Georgia,
HUDOC, 3 May 2007, at paras. 140–2; DH and Others v Czech Republic, HUDOC,
13 November 2007 (GC), at para. 176.
367
Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in
Belgium” v Belgium, the ‘Belgian Linguistics Case’, HUDOC, 23 July 1968, ‘The six
questions referred to the court’, at para. 32.
368
Rasmussen v Denmark, HUDOC, 28 November 1984, at paras. 29–42.
369
Gouri v France, HUDOC, 23 March 2017 (dec.), at para. 23; Carson and Others v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 16 March 2010 (GC), at para. 70.
370
Sidabras and Džiautas v Lithuania, HUDOC, 27 July 2004, at paras. 40–1.
371
Biao v Denmark, HUDOC, 24 May 2016 (GC), at paras. 138 & 139; Taddeucci and
McCall v Italy, HUDOC, 30 June 2016; Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 6 July
2005 (GC) (concerning the culture of impunity surrounding investigations into assaults
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
while, at the other end, it may conclude that neither has.372 However,
since more than 90 per cent of admissible applications to the ECtHR
result in a finding of at least one violation, the latter is statistically
unlikely. In between are three other possibilities. First, and until recently
the most likely outcome, the Court may decide that Article x has been
violated but will expressly decline to consider whether or not this is also
true of Article 14.373 Second, Article x may be found to have been
violated but not Article 14.374 Third, the ECtHR may find the converse –
a violation of Article 14 but not Article x – which means that a right
connected, but not integral, to Article x has been applied in a discrimin-
atory manner. For example, although the right to respect for family life
provided by Article 8 does not expressly grant single people a right to
adopt – and is not, therefore, required by this or any other Convention
provision – where adoption on this basis is available, it must be applied
without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.375 The same is
true of social security provisions that, although linked to the right to the
peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, are
not expressly provided as of right by the Convention.376
The identity of the ‘comparable group’ is sometimes easily determined
by the complaint itself. For example, if the alleged discrimination is based
on gender, the comparator will be members of the opposite sex not
suffering the same alleged disadvantage.377 But in some circumstances
this can be a circular test. For example, whether a ‘comparable’ group is
in an ‘analogous’ situation may depend upon whether or not the differ-
ence in treatment can be justified.378 A failure to treat differently persons
whose circumstances are significantly different will also constitute
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
379
Thlimmenos v Greece, HUDOC, 6 April 2000 (GC), at para. 44.
380
Stummer v Austria, HUDOC, 7 July 2011 (GC), at para. 88.
381
Belgian Linguistics Case, HUDOC, 23 July 1968, ‘Interpretation adopted by the court’, at
para. 10; See, e.g., Swedish Engine Drivers Union v Sweden, HUDOC, 6 February 1976, at
paras. 44–8.
382
Abdulaziz, Cabales, Balkandali v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 May 1985, at paras.
74–83.
383
EB v France, HUDOC, 22 January 2008 (GC), at para. 74; DH and Others v Czech
Republic, HUDOC, 13 November 2007 (GC), at para. 80; Abdulaziz, Cabales, Balkandali
v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 May 1985, at para. 38.
384
Petrovic v Austria, HUDOC, 27 March 1998, at para. 30; James and Others v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 February 1986, at paras. 75–7.
385
Zarb Adami v Malta, HUDOC, 20 June 2006, at para. 73.
386
Petrovic v Austria, HUDOC, 27 March 1998, at para. 38; Rasmussen v Denmark,
HUDOC, 28 November 1984, at para. 40.
387
Petrovic v Austria, HUDOC, 27 March 1998, at paras. 38–9; Rasmussen v Denmark,
HUDOC, 28 November 1984, at paras. 40–1.
388
British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 September
2016, at para. 81; Burden v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 April 2008 (GC), at para. 60.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
389
DH and Others v Czech Republic, HUDOC, 13 November 2007 (GC), at paras. 176
& 196.
390
Van Raalte v the Netherlands, HUDOC, 21 February 1997, at para. 42.
391
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at para. 105; Schalk
and Kopf v Austria, HUDOC, 24 June 2010, at para. 97; EB v France, HUDOC,
22 January 2008 (GC), at para. 91; Smith and Grady v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
27 September 1999, at paras. 89–90.
392
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 15 January 2013, at paras. 94 & 99.
393
Fabris v France, HUDOC, 7 February 2013 (GC), at para. 59 ; Marckx v Belgium,
HUDOC, 13 June 1979, at para. 58.
394
A. H. and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 17 January 2017, at para. 407; Gaygusuz v Austria,
HUDOC, 16 September 1996, at para. 42.
395
Kiyutin v Russia, HUDOC, 10 March 2011, at para. 63.
396
Sahin v Germany, HUDOC, 8 July 2003 (GC), at para. 94; McMichael v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 24 February 1995, at paras. 97–8.
397
See, for example, Aksoy v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 December 1996; Murray v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 28 October 1994; Brogan v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 Novem-
ber 1988.
398
A and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 19 February 2009 (GC), at para. 177;
Marshall v United Kingdom; HUDOC, 10 July 2001 (dec.); Lawless v Ireland (No. 3),
HUDOC, 1 July 1961, at paras. 28–30.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
matters for the Court, they are also subject to a wide margin of appreci-
ation, justified by the ‘better position rationale’ – national authorities
acting in good faith are likely to be better able to make the appropriate
risk assessment than any Strasbourg institution – and by an acknow-
ledgement that the choice is also political by nature and may be contro-
versial in the state in question.399 Different responses may also be
justified to similar emergencies in different states.
Second, any derogating measure must be limited to ‘the extent strictly
required by the exigencies of the situation’, a high threshold proportion-
ality test. The issues here, and the division of responsibility between the
Court and domestic authorities, are similar to those applicable to the
existence of an emergency itself. The Court will consider the adequacy of
existing non-emergency measures, ‘precise reasons relating to the actual
facts’ rather than generalisations will be required400 and appropriate
weight will also be given to such relevant factors as the provision of
adequate safeguards against abuse (including effective judicial remedies
and regular legislative review), the nature of the rights affected, the
circumstances, the duration of the emergency401 and its geographical
reach.402 But it is not for the Court to determine how prudent or expedi-
ent any given emergency measure might be. It must confine itself merely
to considering its compatibility, given the national margin of appreci-
ation, with the Article 15 ‘strict necessity’ test.403
Third, there can be no derogation from the ‘non-derogable rights’ to
life (except for lawful acts of war), not to be tortured or inhumanly or
degradingly treated or punished, not to be held in slavery or servitude and
not to be punished retrospectively or more severely for conduct than was
the case at the time it occurred. Protocol 6 also outlaws the death penalty
except in time of war, while Protocol 13 outlaws it in all circumstances
including time of war. Differences in the impact of counter-terrorist
399
Aksoy v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 December 1996, at para. 53; Brannigan and McBride v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 26 May 1993, at paras. 41 & 43; Ireland v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 207.
400
Demir and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 23 September 1998, at para. 52.
401
Aksoy v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 December 1996, at paras. 79–82; Brannigan and McBride v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 26 May 1993, at paras. 63–6; Ireland v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 217; Lawless v Ireland (No. 3), HUDOC, 1 July 1961, at
paras. 36–8.
402
Sakik and Others v Turkey, HUDOC, 26 November 1997, at paras. 38–9.
403
A and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 19 February 2009 (GC) at para. 174; Ireland v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 214.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
404
A and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 19 February 2009 (GC), at para. 190; Ireland
v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, paras. 225–30.
405
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention, p. 844.
406
Ireland v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 July 1978, at para. 39; Lawless v Ireland (No. 3),
HUDOC, 1 July 1961, at paras. 41–5.
407
Piermont v France, HUDOC, 27 April 1995, at paras. 60–4.
408
Ždanoka v Latvia, HUDOC, 16 March 2006 (GC), at paras. 99–101; Norwood v United
Kingdom, HUDOC, 16 November 2004 (dec.); Lehideux and Isorni v France HUDOC,
23 September 1998 (GC), at paras. 57–8.
409
Navalnyy and Yashin v Russia, HUDOC, 4 December 2014, at para. 117.
410
Ilgar Mammadov v Azerbaijan, HUDOC, 22 May 2014, at para. 137; Gusinskiy v Russia,
HUDOC, 19 May 2004, at para. 77.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
The Protocols
Six subsequent substantive protocols to the Convention have added
further rights, which, unlike the procedural protocols, are optional for
states. Protocol No. 1 provides rights to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions, to education and to free elections. Protocol No. 4 provides
the right not to be imprisoned for debt, the right to freedom of
movement, the right of nationals not to be expelled from the state to
which they belong and the right of aliens not to be collectively expelled.
As already indicated, Protocol No. 6 abolishes the death penalty except
in time of war. Protocol No. 7 contains procedural safeguards regarding
the expulsion of aliens, the right of appeal in criminal proceedings, the
right to compensation for wrongful conviction, the right not to be tried
or punished twice in the same state for the same offence plus the equal
right of spouses under the law. Protocol No. 12 outlaws discrimination
in relation to any right ‘set forth by law’, in contrast with Article
14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination only with
respect to Convention rights.411 And, as also already indicated, Protocol
No. 13 outlaws the death penalty even in time of war. The remaining
Protocols concern procedural matters discussed in the preceding two
chapters.
411
Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, HUDOC, 22 December 2009 (GC), at
paras. 39 & 54.
412
International law prohibits the arbitrary expropriation of foreign property without
compensation.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
413
Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece, HUDOC, 9 December 1994.
414
Béláné Nagy v Hungary, HUDOC, 13 December 2016 (GC), at paras 74–9 & 106–7;
Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v Czech Republic, HUDOC, 10 July 2002 (dec., GC), at
para. 69; Pressos Compania Naviera SA and Others v Belgium, HUDOC, 20 November
1995, at para. 31.
415
Von Maltzan and Others v Germany, HUDOC, 2 March 2005 (dec. GC), at paras.
85–102
416
Akkuş v Turkey, HUDOC, 9 July 1997, at paras. 30–1.
417
Öneryildiz v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 November 2004 (GC), at para. 134.
418
James and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 February 1986, at para. 37; Sporrong
and Lönnroth v Sweden, HUDOC, 23 September 1982, at para. 61.
419
Papamichalopoulos and Others v Greece, HUDOC, 24 June 1993, at paras. 45–6.
420
Baczúr v Hungary, HUDOC, 7 February 2017, at para. 32; Alentseva v Russia, HUDOC,
17 November 2016, at para. 77; JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd and JA Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v
United Kingdom, HUDOC, 30 August 2007 (GC), at paras. 75 & 84.
421
Broniowski v Poland, HUDOC, 22 June 2004 (GC), at paras. 147 & 154; Carbonara and
Ventura v Italy, HUDOC, 30 May 2000, at para. 63; Beyeler v Italy, HUDOC, 5 January
2000 (GC), at paras. 118–19;
422
Tomina and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 1 December 2016, at paras. 37–43; Kjartan
Ásmundsson v Iceland, HUDOC, 12 October 2004, at paras. 40 & 42–5.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
423
Pine Valley Developments and Others v Ireland, HUDOC, 29 November 1991, at paras.
61–4.
424
Carbonara and Ventura v Italy, HUDOC, 30 May 2000, at paras. 65 & 72–3.
425
Kjartan Ásmundsson v Iceland, HUDOC, 12 October 2004, at para. 45.
426
Öneryildiz v Turkey, HUDOC, 30 November 2004 (GC), at paras. 145–9.
427
Broniowski v Poland, HUDOC, 22 June 2004 (GC), at para. 186; Hentrich v France,
HUDOC, 22 September 1994, at paras. 43 & 48–9; Lithgow v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
8 July 1986, at para. 121.
428
Lithgow v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 8 July 1986, at paras. 122 & 147; James and Others
v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 February 1986, at para. 50; Sporrong and Lönnroth v
Sweden, HUDOC, 23 September 1982, at paras. 69 & 73.
429
Loizidou v Turkey, HUDOC, 18 December 1996 (GC), at paras. 60–1.
430
Barcza and Others v Hungary, HUDOC, 11 October 2016, at para. 47; Sporrong and
Lönnroth v Sweden, HUDOC, 23 September 1982, at paras. 58–60.
431
Béláné Nagy v Hungary, HUDOC, 13 December 2016 (GC), at paras. 11–22; Klein v
Austria, HUDOC, 3 March 2011, at para. 48.
432
Beyeler v Italy, HUDOC, 5 January 2000 (GC), at para. 107.
433
Lithgow v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 8 July 1986, at paras. 105–7.
434
Hentrich v France, HUDOC, 22 September 1994, at paras. 40–9.
435
Anthony Aquilina v Malta, HUDOC, 11 December 2014, at para. 54.
436
Statileo v Croatia, HUDOC, 10 July 2014, at para. 140; Fredin v Sweden (No. 1),
HUDOC, 18 February 1991, at paras. 41–7; Mellacher and Others v Austria, HUDOC,
19 December 1989, at paras. 42–4.
437
AGOSI v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 24 October 1986, at para. 51.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
438
Denimark Ltd and Others v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 26 September 2000 (dec.).
439
Raimondo v Italy, HUDOC, 22 February 1994, at para. 25; AGOSI v United Kingdom,
HUDOC, 24 October 1986, at para. 51; Handyside v United Kingdom, HUDOC,
7 December 1976, at para. 62.
440
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 906.
441
DH and Others v Czech Republic, HUDOC, 13 November 2007 (GC), at paras. 196–210;
Belgian Linguistics Case, HUDOC, 23 July 1968, ‘Interpretation adopted by the court’, at
para. 8.
442
Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark, HUDOC, 7 December 1976, at para. 54.
443
Velyo Velev v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 27 May 2014, at para. 34; Belgian Linguistics Case,
HUDOC, 23 July 1968, ‘The meaning and scope of the Protocol’, at para. 1.
444
Leyla Şahin v Turkey, HUDOC, 10 November 2005 (GC), at para. 154.
445
Konrad v Germany, HUDOC, 11 September 2006 (dec.).
446
Ali v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 January 2011, at paras. 54 & 62.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
choose the state school any child, particularly those with special needs,
should attend.447 The language of instruction must not be discrimin-
atory,448 and while the right in question is to an effective education,449
claims based on such issues as resources, management, curriculum and
the role of parents ‘are unlikely to succeed in the absence of clearly
arbitrary action or the lack of a legal base’.450
The positive obligation to respect parents’ religious and philosophical
convictions, primarily intended to protect against indoctrination, is
subject to four main limitations. First, the beliefs at issue must be
‘religious’ or ‘philosophical’ and not merely ‘ideas’ or ‘opinions’.451
Second, mere incidental treatment of matters pertaining to them will
not raise an arguable issue under this branch of Article 2 if the lessons
and other relevant activities are conducted in ‘an objective, critical and
pluralistic manner’.452 Third, the state’s obligations can be discharged by
exempting pupils from the offending class(es).453 Finally, whether dress
codes or the display of religious symbols on the premises of educational
establishments violates Article 2 will depend upon proportionality, likely
impact and the national margin of appreciation.454
447
Graeme v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 5 February 1990 (dec.).
448
Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, HUDOC, 19 October 2012 (GC), at paras.
137–43; Belgian Linguistics Case, HUDOC, 23 July 1968, ‘The six questions referred to
the court’, at para. 7.
449
See Belgian Linguistics Case, HUDOC, 23 July 1968.
450
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, pp. 912, 918.
451
Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 25 February 1982, at para. 36.
452
Folgerø and Others v Norway, HUDOC, 27 June 2007 (GC), at para. 85; Kjeldsen, Busk
Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark, HUDOC, 7 December 1976, at para. 53.
453
Mansur Yalçin v Turkey, HUDOC, 16 September 2014 at para. 77; Folgerø and Others v
Norway, HUDOC, 27 June 2007 (GC), at paras. 96–100.
454
Lautsi v Italy, HUDOC, 18 March 2011 (GC), at paras. 68–72; Leyla Şahin v Turkey,
HUDOC, 10 November 2005 (GC), at paras. 117–23.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
455
Rainey et al., The European Convention on Human Rights, pp. 538–9.
456
Ždanoka v Latvia, HUDOC, 16 March 2006 (GC), at para. 98.
457
Baškauskaitė v Lithuania, HUDOC, 21 October 1998 (dec.); Castelli and Others v Italy,
HUDOC, 14 September 1998 (dec.).
458
Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 8 November
2016, at para. 66; Communist Party of Russia and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 19 June
2012, at paras. 102 & 110; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v Greece, HUDOC,
15 March 2012 (GC), at para. 64; Tǎnase v Moldova, HUDOC, 27 April 2010 (GC), at
para. 161; Yumak and Sadak v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 July 2008 (GC), at para. 109; Hirst v
United Kingdom (No. 2), HUDOC, 6 October 2005 (GC), at para. 62; Mathieu-Mohin
and Clerfayt v Belgium, HUDOC, 2 March 1987, at para. 52.
459
Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v Greece, HUDOC, 15 March 2012 (GC), at para. 65;
Liberal Party, R and P v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 December 1980 (dec.).
460
Yumak and Sadak v Turkey, HUDOC, 8 July 2008 (GC), at paras. 113–15.
461
Grosaru v Romania, HUDOC, 2 March 2010, at paras. 158–62; Petkov v Bulgaria,
HUDOC, 11 June 2009, at paras. 74–83; Pierre-Bloch v France, HUDOC, 21 October
1997, at para. 64.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
462
Gahramanli and Others v Azerbaijan, HUDOC, 8 October 2015, at paras. 70, 78 & 87;
Georgian Labour Party v Georgia, HUDOC, 8 July 2008, at paras. 101 & 104–11.
463
Özgürlük ve Dayanişma Partisi (ÖDP) v Turkey, HUDOC, 10 May 2012, at paras. 34–5.
464
Communist Party of Russia and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 19 June 2012, at paras. 126–8.
465
Grosaru v Romania, HUDOC, 2 March 2010, at paras. 53–7 & 62; Petkov v Bulgaria,
HUDOC, 11 June 2009, at paras. 82–3.
466
Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, p. 929.
467
Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v Greece, HUDOC, 15 March 2012 (GC), at para. 68;
Alajos Kiss v Hungary, HUDOC, 20 May 2010, at paras. 36 & 42–4; Hirst v United
Kingdom (No. 2), HUDOC, 6 October 2005 (GC), at paras. 60–2; Mathieu-Mohin and
Clerfayt v Belgium, HUDOC, 2 March 1987, at para. 52.
468
Oran v Turkey, HUDOC, 15 April 2014, at para. 66; Shindler v United Kingdom
HUDOC, 7 May 2013, at paras. 116 & 118; Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v Greece,
HUDOC, 15 March 2012 (GC), at paras. 75 & 81.
469
Kulinski and Sabev v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 21 July 2016, at para. 32; Scoppola v Italy
(No. 3), HUDOC, 22 May 2012 (GC), at paras. 103–10; Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2),
HUDOC, 6 October 2005 (GC), at paras. 82–5.
470
Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v Russia, HUDOC, 11 January
2007, at para. 48; Melnychenko v Ukraine, HUDOC, 19 October 2004, at para. 57.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
Miscellaneous
In addition to Protocol No. 1, substantive rights are found in the fourth,
sixth, seventh, twelfth and thirteenth protocols. Protocol Nos. 6, 12 and
13 have already been discussed. What follows, therefore, is a brief
overview of the other relatively infrequently litigated rights in the other
provisions. Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 provides the right to be free from
imprisonment merely for non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation,476
while Article 2 provides, subject to legality and democratic necessity tests
similar to those found in Articles 8–11 ECHR (with the ‘public interest’
providing an extra legitimate purpose), the right of everyone lawfully
within a territory to liberty of movement including freedom to choose
residence there, and the right of everyone to leave any country including
his or her own. As already indicated, the right not to be deprived of
liberty, which Article 5 strictly circumscribes, should not be confused
with the right to freedom of movement. Subject to the express legitimate
471
Zornić v Bosnia and Herzegovina, HUDOC, 15 July 2014, at para. 30; Scoppola v Italy
(No. 3), HUDOC, 22 May 2012 (GC), at paras. 81–3 & 103–10; Tǎnase v Moldova,
HUDOC, 27 April 2010 (GC), at para. 180; Melnychenko v Ukraine, HUDOC, 19 Octo-
ber 2004, at para. 56; Gitonas v Greece, HUDOC, 1 July 1997, at para. 44.
472
Podkolzina v Latvia, HUDOC, 9 April 2002, at paras. 34–5.
473
Sukhovetskyy v Ukraine, HUDOC, 28 March 2006, at paras. 62 & 73–4.
474
Uspaskich v Lithuania, HUDOC, 20 December 2016, at para. 89; Paksas v Lithuania,
HUDOC, 6 January 2014 (GC), at para. 100; Abil v Azerbaijan, HUDOC, 21 February
2012, at para. 32; Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v Russia,
HUDOC, 11 January 2007, at paras. 64–7; Ždanoka v Latvia, HUDOC, 16 March 2006
(GC), at para. 110.
475
Gitonas v Greece, HUDOC, 1 July 1997, at para. 39, cf. Sadak and Others v Turkey
(No. 2), HUDOC, 11 June 2002, at paras. 35–40.
476
Gatt v Malta, HUDOC, 27 July 2010, at paras. 53–6.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
477
Schmid v Austria, HUDOC, 9 July 1985 (dec.).
478
Labita v Italy, HUDOC, 6 April 2000 (GC), at paras. 189–97.
479
Riener v Bulgaria, HUDOC, 23 May 2006, at paras. 110–11 & 130.
480
Rosengren v Romania, HUDOC, 24 April 2008, at paras. 32–40; Olivieira v the Nether-
lands, HUDOC, 4 June 2002, at paras. 39–66.
481
IB v Germany, HUDOC, 24 May 1974 (dec.), at para. 13 of the section ‘The Law’.
482
Khlaifia and Others v Italy, HUDOC, 1 September 2015, at paras. 169 & 171–2; Nolan and K
v Russia, HUDOC, 12 February 2009, at paras. 114–16; Bolat v Russia, HUDOC, 5 October
2006, at paras. 81–3; Lupsa v Romania, HUDOC, 8 June 2006, at paras. 54–61.
483
Georgia v Russia, HUDOC, 3 July 2014 (GC), at paras. 167 & 175–6; Hirsi Jamaa and
Others v Italy, HUDOC, 23 February 2012 (GC), at para. 184; Sultani v France, HUDOC,
20 September 2007, at para. 81; Čonka v Belgium, HUDOC, 5 February 2002, at paras.
61–3.
484
Krombach v France, HUDOC, 13 February 2001, at para. 96.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
485
Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v Armenia, HUDOC, 12 June 2012, at paras. 49–52.
486
Kiiveri v Finland, HUDOC, 10 February 2015, at paras. 37 & 45–9; Österlund v Finland,
HUDOC, 10 February 2015, at paras. 41 & 49–52; Lucky Dev v Sweden, HUDOC,
27 November 2014, at para. 58.
487
Marguš v Croatia, HUDOC, 27 May 2014 (GC), at paras. 140–1.
488
Konstantin Markin v Russia, HUDOC, 7 October 2010, at para. 61.
489
C. Ryngaert, ‘Oscillating between embracing and avoiding Bosphorus: The European
Court of Human Rights on member state responsibility for acts of international organ-
isations and the case of the EU’, European Law Review, 39 (2014), 176–92;
V. Tzevelekos, ‘When Elephants Fight It Is the Grass That suffers: “Hegemonic struggle”
in Europe and the side-effects for international law’ in K. Dzehtsiarou, T. Konstadinides,
T. Lock and N. O’Meara (eds.), Human Rights in Europe: The Influence, Overlaps and
Contradictions of the EU and the ECHR (London: Routledge, 2014); L. Gordillo, Inter-
locking Constitutions: Towards and Interordinal Theory of National, European and UN
Law (Oxford: Hart, 2012), pp. 122–81; C. Van de Heyning and R. Lawson, ‘The EU as a
party to the European Convention of (sic) Human Rights: EU law and the European
Court of Justice case law as inspiration and challenge to the ECtHR jurisprudence’, in
P. Popelier, C. Van de Heyning and P. Van Nuffel (eds.), Human Rights Protection in the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
First, it has long been accepted that the ECHR should be interpreted in
accordance with international law.490 International and/or EU law,
including the jurisprudence of the ECJ, may also shed light upon the
interpretation of ECHR provisions, such as the right not to be subject to
gender, and other forms of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR),491 the
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
ECHR),492 issues arising under child abduction (Article 8 ECHR)493 and
generic legal concepts such as the non bis in idem principle (Article 7
ECHR).494 It has also long been accepted, since the EU is not a party to
the Convention, that any complaint that it, or any of its constitutive
organs, has violated the ECHR will be ruled inadmissible at Strasbourg.
Nor is it possible for the ECtHR to hold member states of the CE
responsible for Convention violation by the EU.
Elements of EU law may, however, be integral to the domestic law of a
respondent state and may, therefore, be relevant for a given Strasbourg
complaint. For example, in Aristimuño Mendizabal v France, the French
authorities, concerned about the applicant’s links with the Basque terror-
ist organisation ETA, gave her only short-term permission to reside in
France on sixty-nine occasions over fourteen years, instead of the full
residence permit to which, as a Spanish citizen, she was entitled under
EU law. The ECtHR found that, as the interference was not ‘in accord-
ance with the law’ as required by Article 8 ECHR, which for this purpose
included relevant EU provisions, her right to respect for her family life
under this provision had been violated.495 The ECtHR has also taken EU
directives into account to determine the legality of the detention of
European Legal Order: The Between the European and the National Courts (Cambridge:
Intersentia, 2011), pp. 35–64; J. Callewaert, ‘The European Convention on Human
Rights and European Union law: A long way to harmony’, European Human Rights
Law Review, [2009], 768–83.
490
Schalk and Kopf v Austria, HUDOC, 24 June 2010, para. 52; Marckx v Belgium,
HUDOC, 13 June 1979, para. 41; Golder v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 21 February
1975, para. 29. See also L. Wildhaber, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and
international law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56 (2007), 217–32.
491
Goodwin v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 11 July 2002 (GC), para. 100; DH v Czech
Republic, HUDOC, 13 November 2007 (GC), para. 187.
492
Dangeville v France, HUDOC, 16 April 2002, para. 57.
493
Neulinger and Schuruk v Switzerland, HUDOC, 6 July 2002 (GC), para. 132.
494
Scoppola v Italy (no. 2), HUDOC, 17 September 2009 (GC), para. 105; Sergey Zolotukhin
v Russia, HUDOC, 10 February 2009 (GC), para. 79.
495
Aristimuño Mendizabal v France, HUDOC, 17 January 2006, para. 79; See also Cantoni v
France, HUDOC, 15 November 1996 (GC), para. 26.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
496
Saadi v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 29 January 2008 (GC).
497
Maslov v Austria, HUDOC, 23 June 2008 (GC), paras. 82 & 93.
498
Hornsby v Greece, HUDOC, 19 March 1997, para. 44.
499
Coéme v Belgium, HUDOC, 22 June 2000, para. 114.
500
Michaud v France, HUDOC, 6 December 2012, para. 103; See also Cooperatieve Produ-
centenorganisatie can de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U. A. v the Netherlands, HUDOC,
20 January 2009 (dec.); Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v
Ireland, HUDOC, 30 June 2005 (GC), at paras. 154–6.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
3.5 Conclusion
The meaning, scope and limits of substantive Convention rights hinge
critically upon the design and structure of the ECHR and how the Court
interprets and applies its provisions. For present purposes several obser-
vations can be made about the former. First, for reasons more fully
explained in Chapter 1, the ECHR contains mostly civil and political
501
Matthews v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 18 February 1999 (GC), para. 34.
502
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Ireland, HUDOC, 30 June
2005 (GC), at paras. 154–6; Ryngarert, ‘Oscillating between embracing and avoiding
Bosphorus’; Lock, ‘Beyond Bosphorus’; C. Eckes, ‘Does the European Court of Human
Rights provide protection from the European Community? – The case of Bosphorus
Airways’, European Public Law, 13 (2007), 47–67; C. Costello, ‘The Bosphorus ruling of
the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental rights and blurred boundaries in
Europe’, Human Rights Law Review, 6 (2006), 87–130.
503
MSS v Belgium and Greece, HUDOC, 21 January 2011 (GC), para. 338.
504
Behrami and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway (dec. GC), HUDOC, 2 May
2007, para. 143.
505
Al-Jedda v United Kingdom, HUDOC, 7 July 2011 (GC), at para. 102; Nada v Switzer-
land, HUDOC, 12 September 2012 (GC), para. 172.
506
See, for example, Tzevelekos, ‘When Elephants Fight It Is the Grass That suffers’.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Access paid by the UCSB Libraries, on 09 Apr 2018 at 20:53:11, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139179041.005