ARTICLE 18 OF THE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION: THE APPROACH OF THE STRASBOURG COURT
Egidijus KURIS,
Judge, the European Court of Human Rights (Lithuania), Professor
ARTICLE 18 OF THE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION: THE APPROACH OF THE STRASBOURG COURT
In the article an author analyses the article of a 18 Convention about the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and talks that she has general character, unlike the articles from 2 to a 16 Convention or numerous articles of protocols to her, fastens no certain rights or freedoms.
The article specifies a right on «Limit on the use of limitations in relation to rights» and provides for : the «Limitations settled according to this Convention in relation to the marked rights and freedoms are not used for other aims than those for that they are set».
There are analysed the decisions of the European court on human rights in matters about violation of norms of the article of a 18 Convention on human rights. Namely examples of refuse to the plaintiffs, when Court or not finds violation of the article 18, or declines a complaint in accordance with the real article as unacceptable.
An author lights up development of cramps in the case-law of patterns of failures to the plaintiffs that allude to violation of the article of a 18 Convention.
There are only a few analytical publications on the problem of (non)invocation of Article 18 in the Court’s case-law, the last being: Keller, Helen and Heri, Corina, «Selective Criminal Proceedings and Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ Untapped Potential to Protect Democracy».
There are analysed Rights under the Convention, they can be restricted by the national authorities, who thus keep the enjoyment of these rights within certain limits, but such restrictions themselves have limits, set forth in the Convention. Thus, restrictions themselves are not unrestricted, limitations are not unlimited. These «limitations on restrictions» are twofold.
Key words: the European Convention of Human Rights, the Court’s case-law, very exacting standard of proof, reasonable suspicion, limitations on restrictions.