LAW3214 · Weeks 1–2

Root
Topic
Theme
Sub-theme
Detail
Case
The European System of Human Rights Protection
Historical Origins
Old Liberties to New Rights
Magna Carta → Article 6(1)
*Case: Semayne v Gresham* → Article 8
*Case: Entick v Carrington* → Article 8
Habeas Corpus Act 1679 → Article 5(4)
Bill of Rights 1689 → Articles 3 & 5(3)
Act of Settlement 1701 → Article 6
Revolutions & Their Legacy
Revolution Settlement 1689
'Prescribed by law' origins
Parliamentary democracy emerges
Enlightenment revolutions
US Bill of Rights 1791
*Case: Marbury v Madison* (1803)
French Declaration 1789
Post-War Foundations
Failed States & Consequences
Germany and Italy collapsed
League of Nations failed
Atlantic Charter 1941
Nuremberg Trials
Individuals as perpetrators
UDHR 1948
Inherent dignity principle
Aspirational, not enforceable
ICCPR 1966 follows
Council of Europe
Treaty of London
Article 3: rule of law requirement
Withdrawal/expulsion possible
Greece under colonels
Russia 2022
The ECHR
Creation & Key Features
Drafted 1949, concluded 1950
Revolutionary: citizens sue states
UK ratified first (March 1951)
British role in drafting
Council of Europe, NOT the EU
Court sits in Strasbourg
Right of Individual Petition
UK accepted 1966
Permanent since Protocol 11
Cabinet subcommittee decision
ECHR as Law-Making Treaty
*Case: Wemhoff v FRG* (1968)
10,000+ judgments
Article 1: secure rights to all
Article 46: binding judgments
Committee of Ministers supervises
Categories of Rights
Absolute Rights
Cannot be limited ever
Article 3: prohibition of torture
Tyrer v UK
Soering v UK
Article 6: fair trial (composite)
Some components limitable
Overall fairness absolute
Strong Rights
Strictly defined exceptions only
Article 2: right to life
'No more than absolutely necessary'
Higher proportionality threshold
Article 4: prohibition of slavery
Article 5: right to liberty
Qualified Rights
Limited on broad public interest
Articles 8, 9, 10, 11
Article 8 as paradigm example
Prescribed by law
Legitimate aim
Necessary in democratic society
Protocol Rights
Protocol 1: property, education, vote
Protocol 13: death penalty abolished
Art. 13: effective remedy (not in HRA)
Interpretation Principles
Four Key Principles
Legality
Necessity
Proportionality (*Bank Mellat* test)
Accountability
Implied Rights
Golder v UK
Right of access to court
Hirst v UK (No 2)
Right to vote implied
Margin of appreciation
Precedent & Living Instrument
Chapman v UK
Not formally bound
Follows for legal certainty
Departs on emerging consensus
Living instrument doctrine
*Case: Goodwin v UK* (transsexual rights)
Occasional inconsistency
*Case: Austin v UK* (kettling)
UK & the ECHR
The HRA 1998
Convention rights in UK courts
'Soft' incorporation
s.3: interpretive obligation
s.4: declaration of incompatibility
Parliament keeps last word
Impact of Strasbourg on UK Law
*Sunday Times* → Contempt of Court Act 1981
*Malone* → Interception of Communications Act 1985
*Campbell and Cosans* → no corporal punishment
*Goodwin* → Gender Recognition Act 2004
*McGonnell* → Constitutional Reform Act 2005
*Marper*, *Gillan* → Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
What Leaving Would Unpick
Belfast/Good Friday Agreement
Devolution settlements
TCA crime & borders provisions
EU data adequacy (Article 8)
Political Constitutionalism vs Post-War Model
Westminster Model
Parliamentary sovereignty
Fusion of powers
Weak judiciary
Political accountability only
Post-War Model
Constitutional supremacy
Separation of powers
Enforceable rights via courts
Protects discrete & insular minorities
Paradigm: German Basic Law 1949
Interpretive Doctrines
Non-Doctrinal Approach
No general theory of interpretation
VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland
Autonomous Concepts
Court defines Convention terms independently
Prevents patchwork of definitions
*Case: M v Germany* (Art 7 'penalty')
Effective Protection
Rights practical and effective
Not theoretical and illusory
Artico v Italy
Living Instrument Doctrine
Interpreted in present-day conditions
Evolutive, not originalist
*Case: Tyrer v UK* (birching)
Allows standards to evolve over time
Positive Obligations
Framework Duty
Adequate laws protecting individuals
Must also enforce those laws
X and Y v the Netherlands
Operational Duty (Osman Duty)
Preventive measures where risk known
Real and immediate risk to life
*Case: Osman v UK* [115]–[116]
Subsidiarity
Complementary Subsidiarity
State and Court as partners
Different from EU competitive model
Belgian Linguistic Case
Procedural Subsidiarity
Exhaust domestic remedies (Art 35)
Four-month time limit
Continuing situations excepted
Substantive Subsidiarity
Fourth instance doctrine
Court not an appeals court
Deference to national judges
Kemmache v France (no. 3)
Limits: *Case: Pal v UK*
Margin of Appreciation
Origin and Development
*Case: Greece v UK* (decolonisation)
*Case: Handyside v UK* (leading authority)
Judicial deference and restraint
European Consensus
Margin narrows as consensus develops
*Case: Goodwin v UK* (trans rights)
*Case: Evans v United Kingdom* (IVF)
*Case: Nicklinson v UK* (assisted dying)
Institutional Structure
The Commission (Pre-1998)
Gatekeeping and filtering role
Fact-finding on the ground
Friendly settlements as mediator
Abolished by Protocol 11
Decisions still relevant (s.2 HRA)
*Case: Glimmerveen v Netherlands* (Art 17)
*Case: Sutherland v UK* (friendly settlement)
The Court
First sat 1959, Strasbourg
Originally part-time, now permanent
Art 19: ensure state compliance
Judicial Formations
Single Judge (Art 27)
Inadmissibility decisions only
Committee of 3 (Art 28)
Admissibility and repetitive cases
Chamber of 7 (Art 29)
Admissibility and merits
Workhorse of the Court
Grand Chamber of 17
Authoritative leading judgments
Only ~5% of referral requests succeed
Grand Chamber and Finality
Relinquishment (Art 30)
Serious question or inconsistency
Parties' veto abolished (Protocol 15)
Referral (Art 43)
Within 3 months of chamber judgment
Exceptional cases only
Panel of 5 GC judges decides
Finality (Art 44)
GC judgments always final
Chamber: final after 3 months
Interim Measures (Rule 39)
Nature and Binding Force
Strasbourg interim injunction
Originally non-binding (*Cruz Varas*)
Now binding: *Case: Mamatkulov v Turkey*
2024 Amendment
Exceptional circumstances only
Imminent risk of irreparable harm
Codified existing practice
Application and Jurisdiction
Standing (Art 34)
Who Can Apply
Natural and legal persons
Must be alive: *Case: Vo v France*
Akpınar and Altun v Turkey
Types of Victim
Direct victim
Indirect victim: *Case: McCann v UK*
Potential victim: *Case: Dudgeon v UK*
NGOs via members: *Case: Liberty v UK*
HRA Link
Victim test under s.7 HRA
Not sufficient interest
State Responsibility
State must be responsible
*Case: Behrami v France* (UN acts)
*Case: Nada v Switzerland* (own implementation)
Vertical and horizontal application
Positive obligations create indirect horizontality
*Case: López Ostra v Spain* (pollution)
*Case: A v UK* (reasonable chastisement)
Territorial Jurisdiction
Territorial (Art 1)
Primarily territorial notion
Ilaşcu v Moldova
Extra-Territorial
Effective control: *Case: Cyprus v Turkey*
State agent: *Case: Al-Skeini v UK*
Authority in another CS: *Case: Loizidou v Turkey*
Temporal Effect
Generally prospective only
Art 2 procedural exception
Šilih v Slovenia
Mladenović v Serbia
UK approach: *Case: In re Finucane*; *Case: Re Dalton*
Admissibility (Art 35)
Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Available, sufficient, relate to violation
Four-Month Time Limit
Runs from exhaustion of remedies
Continuing situations excepted
Judgment and Execution
Nature of Judgments
Written, declaratory relief
Increasingly specific remedial measures
Just Satisfaction (Art 41)
Damages and costs
Not generous compared to tort
Linked to s.8 HRA domestically
Execution (Art 46)
Supervised by Committee of Ministers
States have discretion on compliance
Convention as Constitutional Instrument
Evolution of Role
Safeguard against totalitarianism
Now Europe's Bill of Rights
"Constitutional instrument of European public order"
Bosphorus v Ireland
Ždanoka v Latvia