- •1 Overview of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.
- •Drafting
- •Convention articles
- •Article 1 - respecting rights
- •Article 2 - life
- •Article 3 - torture
- •Article 4 - servitude
- •Article 5 - liberty and security
- •Article 6 - fair trial
- •Article 7 - retrospectivity
- •Article 8 - privacy
- •Article 9 - conscience and religion
- •Article 10 - expression
- •Article 11 - association
- •Article 12 - marriage
- •Article 13 - effective remedy
- •Article 14 - discrimination
- •Article 15 - derogations
- •Article 16 - aliens
- •Article 17 - abuse of rights
- •Article 18 - permitted restrictions
- •Convention protocols
- •Protocol 1
- •Article 1 - property
- •Article 2 - education
- •Article 3 - elections
- •Protocol 4 - civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion
- •Protocol 6 - restriction of death penalty
- •Protocol 7 - crime and family
- •Protocol 12 - discrimination
- •Protocol 13 - complete abolition of death penalty
- •Procedural and institutional protocols
- •Procedure of the formation and structure of the European Court of Human Rights. Election of judges, definition of ad hoc judge, terms of office.
- •Composition
- •History and structure
- •Protocol no.14 reforms
- •Plenary court and administration
- •Victim status.
Article 7 - retrospectivity
Article 7 prohibits the retrospective criminalisation of acts and omissions. No person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence at the time of its commission. The article states that a criminal offence is one under either national or international law, which would permit a party to prosecute someone for a crime which was not illegal under their domestic law at the time, so long as it was prohibited by international law. The Article also prohibits a heavier penalty being imposed than was applicable at the time when the criminal act was committed.
Article 7 incorporates the legal principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege into the convention.
Article 8 - privacy
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. This may be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises positive obligations:[16] whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced parent to his/her child).
Article 9 - conscience and religion
Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"
Article 10 - expression
Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
interests of national security
territorial integrity or public safety
prevention of disorder or crime
protection of health or morals
protection of the reputation or the rights of others
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
Relevant cases are:
Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407
The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153, the "Spycatcher" case.
Bowman v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 1, distributing vast quantities of anti-abortion material in contravention to election spending laws
Communist Party v Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 1211
Appleby v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 38, protests in a private shopping mall
