Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T04:33:44.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Court of Human Rights and the Protection of Civil Liberties: an Overview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

C.A. Gearty
Get access

Extract

It is doubtful whether there is a more famous court in Europe than the European Court of Human Rights. The town in which it is located, Strasbourg, has become a rallying cry for disappointed litigants from Iceland to Istanbul. Through its application of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court is seen to have played an important role in the protection of individual freedom in western Europe, and its case-law has ballooned dramatically in recent years. So successful has it been that the Court's jurisdiction is coveted by the newly emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe as a badge of legitimacy and a bulwark against future tyranny. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Bulgaria already have judges on the Court and representatives from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are expected in the not too distant future. There is even talk of Russian membership. Moves are afoot to rationalise the Court's procedures, and to incorporate its law within the European Community.1 Some- time in the next few years it will have a fine new building, designed by Sir Richard Rogers. All the signs are that its jurisprudence will continue to grow at a hectic pace. It is not improbable that the Court will emerge over time as a supreme court of Europe, at least so far as human rights are concerned.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 89 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Foster, N., “The European Court of Justice and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights” (1987) 8 H.R.L.J. 245;Google ScholarGrief, N., “The Domestic Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights as Mediated through Community Law” [1991] P.L. 555;Google ScholarPescatore, P., “The Context and Significance of Fundamental Rights in the Law of the European Communities” (1981) 2 H.R.L.J. 295;Google ScholarSchermers, H.G., “The European Communities Bound by Fundamental Human Rights” (1990) 27 C.M.L.R. 249;Google ScholarCoppel, J. and O'Neill, A., “The European Court of Justice: Taking Rights Seriously?” (1992) 29 C.M.L.R. 669.Google Scholar

2 The statistics that follow are drawn from European Commission of Human Rights, Survey of Activities and Statistics 1991 (Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1992).Google Scholar

3 A new protocol, the ninth, will allow the applicant to seise the Court of his or her case. The protocol is not yet in force, however, and the United Kingdom Government has said that it does not intend to ratify the protocol: H.L. Deb. vol. 535 col. 23 (10 Feb. 1992).

4 Council of Europe, The Council of Europe and Human Rights (Strasbourg, 1991), p. 7 and appendix 7.Google Scholar

5 See generally Council of Europe, The European Court of Human Rights. Survey of Activities 1959–91 (Strasbourg, 1992).Google Scholar

6 Ibid., appendix 6.

7 Lawless v. Ireland (1961) 1 E.H.R.R. 15; De Becker v. Belgium (1962) 1 E.H.R.R. 43. See Berger, Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights (Dublin, 1989), pp. 1–4 for the background to the growth of the Court.Google Scholar

8 Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 737.

9 (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 25. See Boyle, K. and Hannum, H., “Ireland in Strasbourg. Final Decisions in the Northern Irish Proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights” (1976) 11 I.J. (n.s.)243.Google Scholar

10 Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245.

11 Klass v. Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 214.

12 Part of the growth in the volume of case-law is due to the large number of cases that have had to be taken to the Court arising out of the slowness of civil proceedings in Italy; see for a recent example the 14 judgments gathered together as Cases v. Italy, Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 3 December 1991. In 1991, the Commission declared admissible 61 applications against Italy concerning the length of criminal or civil proceedings.

13 23 states are contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, and four states (the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria) are signatory states.

14 See (1988) 9 H.R.L.J. 365–498.

15 “Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin” (1990) 11 H.R.L.J. 57Google ScholarMuller, J.P., “Fundamental Rights in Democracy” (1983) 4 H.R.L.J. 131Google ScholarPolaciewicz, J. and Jacob-Foltzer, V., “The European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: The Impact of the Strasbourg Case-law in States where Direct Effect is given to the Convention” (1991) 12 H.R.L.J. 65 and 125Google ScholarStrasser, W., “The Relationship between Substantive Rights and Procedural Rights Guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights” in Matscher, and Petzold, (eds.), Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension (Studies in Honour of G.J. Wiarda), 2nd ed. (1990), p. 595Google Scholar The leading textbook is van Dijk, and van Hoof, , Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd ed. (1990)Google ScholarJacobs, , The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford 1985)Google ScholarMerills, , The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights (Manchester 1988)Google ScholarDrzemczewski, , European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law, A Comparative Study (Oxford 1983)Google ScholarDelmas-Marty, (ed.), The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection Versus National Restrictions (Dordrecht 1992)Google Scholar

16 See in particular an excellent piece by Bradley, A.W., “The United Kingdom before the Strasbourg Court 1975–1990” in Finnie, , Himsworth, and Walker, (eds.), Edinburgh Essays in Public Law (Edinburgh 1991), p. 185.Google Scholar

17 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137. For the more recent academic literature, see Bickel, , The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2nd ed. (New Haven 1986);Google ScholarEly, , Democracy and Distrust. A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge Mass. 1980);Google ScholarBork, , The Tempting of America. The Political Seduction of the Law (London 1990).Google Scholar

18 Mandel, , The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada (Toronto 1989);Google ScholarMonahan, P.J., “Judicial Review and Democracy” (1987) 21 U.B.C.L. Rev. 87;Google ScholarMartin, R., “Legitimizing Judicial Review under the Charter: Democracy or Distrust” (1991) 49 Univ. Toronto Faculty of Law Rev. 62.Google Scholar

19 See Casey, , Constitutional Law in Ireland (London 1987).Google ScholarFor an interesting analysis of two other jurisdictions, see Levine, S., “Bills of Rights in Parliamentary Settings: New Zealand and Israeli Experience” (1991) 44 Parl. Aff. 337.Google Scholar

20 Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 25.

21 For a consideration of how techniques of interpretation vary as between international treaties in general and human rights treaties in particular, see Bernhardt, R., “Thoughts on the Interpretation of Human-Rights Treaties” in Protecting Human Rights, op. cit. note 15 supra, p. 65.Google Scholar

22 See Cranston, , What are Human Rights? (1973);Google ScholarMcFarlane, , The Theory and Practice of Human Rights (London 1985); Freeden, Rights (Milton Keynes 1991).Google Scholar

23 See Dworkin, , Taking Rights Seriously (London 1977);Google ScholarHiggins, R., “Human Rights: Some Questions of Integrity” (1989) 52 M.L.R. 1.Google Scholar

24 Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe (CSCE), Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 21 November 1990, (1990) 11 H.R.L.J. 379; Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe (CSCE), Helsinki Document 1992, The Challenges of Change (1992) 13 H.R.L.J. 284. See generally, Schlager, E., “The Procedural Framework of the CSCE: From the Helsinki Consultations to the Paris Charter, 1972–1990” (1991) 12 H.R.L.J. 221.Google Scholar On human rights in Africa, see Kodjo, E., “The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights” (1990) 11 H.R.L.J. 271.Google Scholar

25 See Pocar, F., “Current Developments and Approaches in the Practice of the Human Rights Committee in Consideration of State Reports” in Eide, and Helgesen, (eds.), The Future of Human Rights Protection in a Changing World (Essays in Honor of Torkel Opsahl) (Oslo 1991), p. 51.Google Scholar

26 Jennings, R., “Human Rights and Domestic Law and Courts”, in Protecting Human Rights, op. cit. note 15 supra, at p. 298,Google Scholar quoted in Bradley, , op. cit. note 16 supra, at p. 207. Sir Robert is presently the British judge at the International Court of Justice. In the opening sentence of the extract reproduced in the text, Sir Robert is quoting the words of an earlier distinguished British judge at the International Court, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht.Google Scholar

27 Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 1; Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 25; Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 293; Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11 E.H.R.R. 439; Vilvarajah and others v. United Kingdom (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 248.

28 Van der Mussele v. Belgium (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 163.

29 F. v. Switzerland (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 411.

30 Berrehab v. Netherlands (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 322; Beldjoudi v. France, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 March 1992.

31 As to how the Court has approached this task, see for example Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245; Silver v. United Kingdom (1983) 5 E.H.R.R. 347.

32 van Dijk, and van Hoof, , op. cit. note 15 supra, at p. 617 (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar

33 Ibid.

34 See the address by DrChurchill, R. to the British Institute of Human Rights, 25 February 1992.Google Scholar See also Hampson, F.J., “The Concept of an ‘Arguable Claim’ under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights” (1990) 39 I.C.L.Q. 891. For a recent and very important application of article 13, see Vilvarajah and others v. United Kingdom (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 248.Google Scholar

35 For a clear statement of principle by the President of the European Court of Human Rights on the subsidiary nature of the Court's jurisdiction, see Ryssdal, R., “Human Rights Problems in an Enla r rrged Europe”(An Address to the Conference of the International Commission of Jurists at Strasbourg,23–25 April 1992, Council of Europe, 1992).Google Scholar

36 See Strasser, W., op. cit. note 15 supraGoogle Scholar

37 See text to notes 178–205 infra.

38 See text at notes 27–30 supra.

39 Article 7, which prohibits retrospective criminal law, has not yet given rise to any Court decisions and so it will not be discussed further in this article. The frequent litigation referred to in the text arises solely out of articles 5 and 6.

40 Article 5(1)c.

41 Article 5(1)a.

42 Article 5(1)f.

43 Article 5(1)d.

44 Article 5(1)e.

45 Article 5(1)b.

46 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (1971) 1 E.H.R.R. 373. The detentions were however ruled to be an infringement of article 5(4), see text at note 66 infra. For the mental health cases which have also been generally unsuccessful under article 5(1), see text to notes 119–122 infra.

47 (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 205. Cf. Wemhoffv. Federal Republic of Germany (1968) 1 E.H.R.R. 55.

48 Italics added.

49 Bouamar v. Belgium (1987) 11 E.H.R.R. 1. Cf. Nielsen v. Denmark (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 175.

50 Lawless v. Ireland (1961) 1 E.H.R.R. 15.

51 Article 5(1)c allows “the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so”. The Irish Government's argument was that the phrase “effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority” did not govern an arrest and detention “reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence”. Although it lost on this point, the Irish Government won the case by successfully relying on the derogation provision to be found in article 15 of the Convention.

52 (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 297. See also Guzzardi v. Italy (1980) 3 E.H.R.R. 333; Stocké v. Germany (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 839.

53 (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 157.

54 The provision was altered to include a requirement for reasonable suspicion after the facts in this case had occurred but before the judgment of the Court: see ibid., para. r 22.

55 Sub-paragraph c allows inter alia “the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence”.

56 (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 157, para. 33.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid., para. 35.

59 Ibid., para. 34.

60 (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 117.

61 Ibid., para. 62.

62 Ibid. The United Kingdom Government has derogated from the Convention to the extent that this case required a change in its law. A challenge to this derogation has been argued before the Court, having been upheld by the European Commission by a majority of eight to five in a Report on 3 December 1991: Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom. For the reaction of the then British Government to the Brogan decision, see Ewing, and Gearty, , Freedom Under Thatcher. Civil Liberties in Modern Britain (Oxford 1990), pp. 224–225.Google Scholar

63 Schiesser v. Switzerland (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 417; deJong, Baljet and Van den Brink v Netherlands (1984) 8 E.H.R.R. 20; McGoffv. Sweden (1984) 8 E.H.R.R. 246; Neumeister v. Austria (1968) 1 E.H.R.R. 91; Stögmüller v. Austria (1969) 1 E.H.R.R. 155; Ringeisen v. Austria (1971) 1 E.H.R.R. 455; Letellier v. France (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 83; Clooth v. Belgium (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 717; Kemmache v. France (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 520; Koster v. Netherlands (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 396; Tomasi v. France, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 27 August 1992.

65 See in particular Van der Leer v. Netherlands (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 567.

65 See text in note 119 infra. Note also art. 5(5) which requires that “[e]veryone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation”, and which has been applied in no more than a handful of cases, notably Brogan v. United Kingdom (note 60 supra).

66 De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (note 46 supra). Cf. Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 443; de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v. Netherlands (1984) 8 E.H.R.R. 20.

67 Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 71.

68 Lamy v. Belgium (1989) 11 E.H.R.R. 529.

69 Bouamarv. Belgium (1987) 11 E.H.R.R. 1.

70 (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 210.

71 Salabiaku v. France (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 379; Minelli v. Switzerland (1983) 5 E.H.R.R. 554; Nölkenbockhoff v. Federal Republic of Germany (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 163; Lutz v. Federal Republic of Germany (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 182. See also the important case of Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 360, where the criteria for determining compliance with article 6(2) are set out.

72 The phrase is in article 6(3).

73 Article 6(3)a. Brozicek v. Italy (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 371; Kamasinski v. Austria (1989) 13 E.H.R.R. 36.

74 Article 6(3)(b). Kamasinski v. Austria (note 73 supra). The right to a private consultation with one's legal advisers is not unqualified: see Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 165.

75 Article 6(3)(e). Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 149; Kamasinski v. Austria (note 73 supra).

76 Article 6(3)(c). Artico v. Italy (1980) 3 E.H.R.R. 1; Goddi v. Italy (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 457; S. v. Switzerland (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 670; Pham Hoang v. France, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 25 September 1992; Croissant v. Germany, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 25 September 1992.

77 Article 6(3)(d). Artner v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 28 August 1992; Vidal v. Belgium, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 22 April 1992; Kostovski v. Netherlands (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 434; Windisch v. Austria (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 281. For the possibility of conflict with the public interest see particularly Unterpertinger v. Austria (1986) 13 E.H.R.R. 175, where a law entitling members of the accused's family to refuse to give evidence was held to have been applied in a way which infringed article 6. The accused had been charged with causing bodily harm to his stepdaughter and his wife, both of whom reported him to the police but then refused to give evidence in court. For the possible implications of this provision in Britain, see G. Marcus, “Secret Witnesses” [1990] P.L. 207.

78 The second sentence of article 6(1) sets out a qualified right to public proceedings; see Windisch v. Austria (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 281; Helmers v. Sweden, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 October 1991; Fejde v. Sweden, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 October 1991; Andersson v. Sweden, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 October 1991. See generally Cremona, J.J., “The Public Character of Trial and Judgment in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights” in Protecting Human Rights, op cit. note 15 supra, p. 107.Google Scholar

79 See, e.g., Delcourt v. Belgium (1970) 1 E.H.R.R. 355; Deweer v. Belgium (1980) 2 E.H.R.R. 439; Eckle v. Federal Republic of Germany (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 1; Foti v. Italy (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 313; Adolf v. Austria (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 313; Öztürk v. Federal Republic of Germany (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 409.

80 (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 647. See further Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 165.

81 (1968) 1 E.H.R.R. 91. Cf. T v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 October 1992.

82 (1985) 9 E.H.R.R. 191.

83 (1988)11 E.H.R.R. 360.

84 Schenk v. Switzerland (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 242.

85 Delcourt v. Belgium (1970) 1 E.H.R.R. 355; Borgers v. Belgium, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 30 October 1991.

86 De Cubber v. Belgium (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 236; Pfeiferand Plankl v. Austria (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 692. Cf. Piersack v. Belgium (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 169; Hauschildt v. Denmark (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 266; Oberschlick v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 23 May 1991.

87 Deweer v. Belgium (1980) 2 E.H.R.R. 439. See particularly Eckle v. Federal Republic of Germany, (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 1; De Cubber v. Belgium (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 236; Guincho v. Portugal (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 223; Viezzer v. Italy. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 19 February 1991; Nibbio, Borgese, Biondi, Monaco, Lestini v. Italy, Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 February 1992. Cf. Pretto v. Italy (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 182.

88 See generally van Dijk, P.. “The Interpretation of ‘Civil Rights and Obligations’ by the European Court of Human Rights—One More Step to Take” in Protecting Human Rights, op. cit. note 15 supra, p. 131;Google Scholarvan Dijk, and van Hoof, , op. cit. note 15 supra, pp. 294–307;Google ScholarBradley, A.W., “The European Convention on Human Rights and Administrative Law-First Impressions” (1983) 21 Osgoodc Hall L.J. 609;Google ScholarBoyle, A., “Administrative Justice, Judicial Review and the Right to a Fair Hearing under the European Convention on Human Rights” [1984] P.L. 89.Google Scholar

89 Lechnerand Hess v. Austria (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. 490; Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 24; H v. France (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 74; Capuano v. Italy (1987) 13 E.H.R.R. 271; Pugliese v. Italy (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 413.

90 Bock v. Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 13 E.H.R.R. 247.

91 Buchholz v. Federal Republic of Germany (1981) 3 E.H.R.R. 597; Obermeier v. Austria (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 290.

92 König v. Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 170.

93 Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 17.

94 Ringeisen v. Austria (1971) 1 E.H.R.R. 455; Wiesinger v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 30 October 1991.

95 Sramek v. Austria (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 351. Cf. Ettl v. Austria (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 255; Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. 464; Poiss v. Austria (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 231.

96 Benthem v. Netherlands (1985) 8 E.H.R.R. 1; Oerlemans v. Netherlands, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 27 November 1991. Cf. Tre Traktörer A ktiebolag v. Sweden (1989) 13 E.H.R.R. 309; Fredin v. Sweden (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 784.

97 Langborger v. Sweden (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 416.

98 Feldbrugge v. Netherlands (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 425.

99 Deumeland v. Federal Republic of Germany (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 448. Cf. Van Marie v. Netherlands (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 483; Périscope v. France (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 597; Salerno v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 October 1992.

100 Pudas v. Sweden (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 380.

101 H. v. Belgium (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 339.

102 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. See Fredin v. Sweden (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 784.

103 See note 150 infra.

104 Bod´n v. Sweden (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 367; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 35. Cf. Allan Jacobssonv. Sweden (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 56. For the impact of article 6(1) decisions on Swedish law, see Danclius, H., “Judicial Control of the Administration—A Swedish Proposal for Legislative Reform” in Protecting Human Rights, op cit. note 15 supra, p. 115.Google Scholar

105 (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 79.

106 (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 90. For an example of the potential of article 6 in the environmental field, see Oerlemans v. Netherlands (note 96 supra).

107 Ettl v. Austria (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 255; Obermeier v. Austria (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 290; Skärby v. Sweden (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 90; James v. United Kingdom (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 123. See Bradley, , op. cit. note 16 supra, at pp. 200–203.Google Scholar

108 Though even here of course, changes imposed by judges in the name of fairness and equality of treatment can have disastrous consequences. See the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, striking down the rape shield law on the ground that it was unfair to men: R. v. Seaboyer and the Queen; re Gayne and the Queen, Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, 22 August 1991, briefly reported at (1991) 4 O.R.(3d) 383.

109 See Ison, T.G., “The Sovereignty of the Judiciary” (1985–86) 10 Adel. Law Rev. 1;Google ScholarMcAuslan, , The Ideologies of Planning Law (Oxford 1980);Google ScholarGriffith, , The Politics of the Judiciary, 4th ed. (London 1991).Google Scholar

110 We are not concerned here with the vexed question of national minorities within European nation states.

111 (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 524.

112 Article 8(1): Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Article 8(2): There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

113 Golder v. United Kingdom, para. 35.

114 (1984) 7E.H.R.R. 165.

115 See also Silver v. United Kingdom (1983) 5 E.H.R.R. 347; Boyle and Rice v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 425; Campbell v. United Kingdom, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 25 March 1992.

116 (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 293. Cf. Thynne, Wilson and Gunnetl v. United Kingdom (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 666. McCallum v.United Kingdom (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 597.

117 (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 202.

118 Supra, note 112.

119 (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 387.

120 Ibid., para. 60.

121 (1981) 4E.H.R.R. 188.

122 Luberti v. Italy (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 440; Ashingdane v. United Kingdom (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 528; Nielsen v. Denmark (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 175; Van Der Leer v. Netherlands (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 567; Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 24 September 1992; Megyeri v. Germany, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 May 1992.

123 For a good general discussion, see Buquicchio-De Boer, M., “Children and the European Convention on Human Rights” in Protecting Human Rights, op cit. note 15 supra, p. 73.Google Scholar

124 W. v. United Kingdom (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 29; R. v. United Kingdom (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 74; O. v. United Kingdom (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 82; B. v. United Kingdom (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 87; H. v. United Kingdom (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 95.

125 (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 259.

126 Cf. Eriksson v. Sweden (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 183; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 615; Riemev. Sweden, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 22 April 1992.

127 (1988) 11 E.H.R.R. 259, para. 74.

128 Ibid., para. 83.

129 Winterwerp v. Netherlands (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 387 and the authorities cited at note 122 supra.

130 (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 440, para. 27, citing Winterwerp.

131 Hague v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison; Weldon v. Home Office [1991] 3 All E.R. 733 (H.L.).

132 Silver v. United Kingdom (1983) 5 E.H.R.R. 347; Boyle and Rice v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 425. See generally Stern, , Bricks of Shame. Britain's Prisons, 2nd ed. (London, 1989).Google Scholar See also Maguire, , Vagg, and Morgan, (eds.), Accountability and Prisons. Opening up a Closed World (London, 1985);Google ScholarRichardson, G., “Time to Take Prisoners' Rights Seriously” (1984) 11 Journal of Law and Society 1;Google ScholarGearty, C.A., “Prisons and the Courts” in Muncie, and Sparks, (eds.). Imprisonment: European Perspectives (Milton Keynes 1991), p. 219.Google Scholar

133 Note however the recent report on British prisons by the Torture Committee set up under the Council of Europe's Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

134 Boyle and Rice v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 425, para. 74.

135 See e.g., Brady v. United Kingdom (1979) 3 E.H.R.R. 297 (classification of prisoners); App. 96/0/81 v. Germany (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 110; App. 9907/82 (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 576; App. 10565/83 v. Germany (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 152 (alleged breaches of art. 3); App. 10333/83 v. United Kingdom (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 353 (right to privacy). For an exception to this trend, see Hamer v. United Kingdom (1979) 4 E.H.R.R. 139, where however the issue concerned an explicit right guaranteed in the Convention, the right to marry in article 12.

136 (1978) 3 E.H.R.R. 104.

137 Ibid., paras. 72, 73.

138 Ibid., para. 97.

139 Ibid., para. 101.

140 Ibid., para. 102.

141 Ibid., paras. 3, 7 and 4 of the dissenting opinion.

142 (1981)4 E.H.R.R. 149.

143 (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 186.

144 Marckx v. Belgium (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 330; Johnston v. Ireland (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 203; Inze v. Austria (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 394. For a follow-up case after Marckx, see Vermeire v. Belgium, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 November 1991.

145 Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. 25 March 1991.

146 Rees v United Kingdom (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 56; Cossey v. United Kingdom (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 622.

147 Johnston v. Ireland (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 203.

148 Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 248. See also Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 27 August 1992.

149 National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 578; Swedish Engine Drivers' Union v. Sweden (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 617; Schmidt and Dahbtröm v. Sweden (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 632.

150 James v. United Kingdom (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 123;Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 35; Lithgow v. United Kingdom (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 329; Van der Mussele v. Belgium (1983) 6 E.H.R.R. 163; Allgemeine Gold-und Silberscheideanstalt v. United Kingdom (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 1; Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. 464; Poiss v. Austria (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 231; Gillow v. United Kingdom (1986) 11 E.H.R.R. 335;Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 56; Mellacher v. Austria (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 391; Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 1; Mats Jacobsson v. Sweden (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 79; Skarby v. Sweden (1990) 13 E.H.R.R. 90; Pine Valley Developments Ltd. v. Ireland (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 319. Cf. Darby v. Sweden (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 774. See generally Schemers, H.G., “The International Protection of the Right of Property” in Protecting Human Rights, op. cit. note 15 supra, p. 565.Google Scholar

151 Independent Schools Information Service, Independent Schools. The Legal Case (A Joint Opinion by Anthony Lester Q.C. and David Pannick, with a foreword by Lord Scarman, ISIS, 1991).

152 James v. United Kingdom (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 123.

153 (1981) 4 E.H.R.R. 38. For the compensation subsequently awarded to the applicants under article 50, see (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 201.

154 (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 471.

155 Article 14: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

156 HC 503 of 1984–85.

157 The final sentence in article 10(1) states that the provision “shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises”.

158 For the way in which this article has been utilised to protect minorities, see text at note 111 ff, supra.

159 The Convention also guarantees “the right to freedom of thought and religion” in article 9, but the Court has rarely considered the provision and has never held it to have been breached. For a short discussion, see Darby v. Sweden (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 774.

160 The phrase is in article 8(2). Articles 10(2) and 11(2) refer to the restriction being “prescribed by law”.

161 See for example Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245.

162 Ely, , Democracy and Distrust, op. cit. note 17 supra.Google Scholar

163 Ibid., at p. 103 (italics in the original). For the full Ely theory, which is orientated primarily towards the United States Supreme Court and which contains an elaborate justification of judicial activism on behalf of objectively defined minority groups, see ibid, chs. 4–6.

164 (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407. See Macdonald, R. St. J., “Politicians and the Press” in Protecting Human Rights, op. cit. note 15 supra, p. 361.Google Scholar

165 Ibid., para. 39 (footnotes omitted).

166 Ibid., para. 40.

167 Ibid., para. 41.

168 Ibid., para. 42.

169 Ibid.

170 See in r particular New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964); New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

171 Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 23 May 1991. See also Schwabe v. Austria, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 28 August 1992. Article 6 has also been useful in the context of political speech: Demicoli v. Malta (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 47. For the way that article 10 affects the judiciary's control of freedom of expression, see Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245; Weber v. Switzerland (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 508; Barfod v. Denmark (1989) 13 E.H.R.R. 493. For article 10 in the context of information about abortion rights, see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 29 October 1992.Google Scholar

172 (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 204.

173 Ibid., para. 32.

174 (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 362. See also Castells v. Spain (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 445; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 25 June 1992.

175 Ibid., para. 53. These strong dicta raise squarely the question of whether provocatively racist speech is now to be regarded as protected by article 11. The Commission has so far cushioned the Court from confrontation with the problem by declaring inadmissible those cases in which the issue has arisen: see in particular Application 9905/82 v. Austria (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 137. The Commission has also ruled against distributors of racist literature who have argued an article 10 right to express themselves: Glimmerveen v. Netherlands (1979) 4 E.H.R.R. 260; Felderer v. Sweden (1985) 8 E.H.R.R. 91. However, it may only be a matter of time before the problem falls to be resolved by the Court in some shape or form. Article 17 declares that “[n]othing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention”, and it might offer a possible route out of the dilemma. For an example of the absolutist nature of American law in this area, see Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America 373 N.E. 2d 21 (1978).

176 (1987)9 E.H.R.R. 433.

177 The leading case is Klass v. Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 214. See also: Malone v. United Kingdom (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 14; Huvig v. France (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 528; Kruslin v. France (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 547; Lüdi v. Switzerland, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 15 June 1992. On article 8 and freedom of information, see Gaskin v. United Kingdom (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 36.

178 Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 2) (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 229; Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom (1991) 14 E.H.R.R. 153.

179 (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 647.

180 Ibid., para. 98.

181 (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 25.

182 Ibid., para. 24.

183 Ibid., para. 50.

184 Kosiek v. Federal Republic of Germany (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 328.

185 See in particular Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

186 See Application 10293/83, reported at (1985) 9 E.H.R.R. 255.

187 Application 11567/85 and Application 11568 v. France (1987) 11 E.H.R.R. 67.

188 Gay News Limited and Lemon v. United Kingdom (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 123. The United Kingdom's blasphemy laws have survived an article 9 challenge arising out of the Rushdie affair: Choudhury v. United Kingdom (1991) 12 H.R.L.J. 172 (Decision of the European Commission).

189 Purcell v. Ireland (1991) 12 H.R.L.J. 254. For the Irish law, see The State (Lynch) v. Cooney [1982] I.R. 337.

190 For the proceedings before the British courts, see R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex pane Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696.

191 Christians against Racism and Fascism v. United Kingdom (1981) 24 Y.B.E.C.H.R. 178.

192 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374; Council of Civil Service Unions v. United Kingdom (1987) 10 E.H.R.R. 269.

193 Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 737. Cf. Müller v. Switzerland (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 212.

194 (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 321. See the Council of Europe's Convention on Transfrontier Television (European Treaty Series No. 130).

195 Ibid., para. 73.

196 Ibid.

197 Ibid., para. 55.

198 (1990) 12E.H.R.R. 485.

199 Ibid., para. 47.

200 Ibid.

201 Ibid. See generally J. De Meyer, “Human Rights in a Commercial Context” (1984) 5 H.R.L.J. 139.

202 Ibid., para. 61. See also Markt Intern and Beerman v. Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 161; Banhold v. Federal Republic of Germany (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 383.

203 Ibid.

204 Ibid., at para. 1 of the joint dissent by Judges Bindschedler-Robert and Matscher.

205 Markt Intern, note 202 supra, para. 26. See also Barthold, note 202 supra.

206 Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

207 Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo 418 U.S. 241 (1974).

208 R. v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) 18 D.L.R. (4th) 321, on which see T.J. Christian and K.D. Ewing, [1987] C.L.J. 4.

209 See Dworkin, , Law's Empire (London 1986).Google Scholar

210 Gaskin v. United Kingdom (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 36.

211 Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245.

212 Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden (1982) 5 E.H.R.R. 35.

213 Markt Intern and Beerman v. Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 161.

214 At the time of writing, there are 27 judges on the Court.

215 See in the American context Bork, op. cit. note 17 supra.

216 See Mandel, op. cit. note 18 supra.