UDC 341.231.14                                                                                                                                                                                   PDF

ORCID: 0000-0002-9800-8785

ORCID: 0000-0002-8562-0131

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-1(30)-3

Tetiana FULEY,

The Head of Department of the National School of judges of Ukraine, Candidate of Juridicial Sciences,honored lawer of Ukraine

Oksana KUCHIV,

Leading expert of the National School of judges of Ukraine

Freedom of movement in the light of the case law of the ECtHR: issues of applicability and identification of restrictions

The article is devoted to the right to freedom of movement, which is guaranteed by Article 2 of the Protocol 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is noted that freedom of movement includes 3 aspects: freedom of movement, freedom to choose residence and the right to leave any e country freely, including one's own. The structure of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and its features in comparison with the structures of other articles of the Convention are described. It is emphasized that freedom of movement, while a fundamental freedom, is not absolute and may be restricted under the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Protocol. Emphasis is made on the differences between "restrictions" on freedom of movement and "interference" in the rights guaranteed by other articles of the Convention. In considering the applicability of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention on the basis of an analysis of the case law of the ECtHR, the issue of delimitation of the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and other articles of the Convention, in particular Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention is revealed. It is emphasized that the difference between deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and restriction on freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance of the restriction.The interrelation between the Article 8 of the Convention and P4-2 are underlined while it emphasized that Article 8 should be construed as conferring a right to live in a particular location, thus freedom to choose one’s residence is not covered by its scope, but is at the heart of Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4. Using a number of ECtHR judgments, it has been demonstrated that the legal relationship covered by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention may arise in cases pending before administrative, civil jurisdictions and criminal proceedings. Examples of specific judgements of the ECtHR demonstrate cases of "restrictions" on freedom of movement, which is of practical importance for the relevant application of this article in national jurisprudence.

Key words: freedom of movement, Article of Protocol No. 4, ECtHR case-law, applicability, restriction, scope, freedom to choose his residence, right to leave any country. 

References

Jeremy McBride. COVID-19 and the European convention on human rights. ECHR BLOG. 27 March 2020. Retrieved from http://echrblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/an-analysis-of-covid-19-responses-and.html

Garib v. the Netherlands, no. 43494/09: European Court of Human Rights, 6 November 2017. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189059  

Pro ratyfikatsiiu Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod 1950 roku, Pershoho protokolu ta protokoliv № 2, 4, 7 ta 11 do Konventsii [On Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, First Protocol and Protocols № 2, 4, 7 and 11 to the Convention]: Zakon Ukrainy vid 17.07.1997 No. 475/97-VR [Law of Ukraine of 17 July 1997 No. 475/97-VR] / Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/475/97-%D0%B2%D1%80  [in Ukrainian]

Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 463/05: European Court of Human Rights, 10 February 2011. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103354  

Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy: v 11 tomakh [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language: in 11 volumes]. Vol. 5, 1974. Retrieved from http://sum.in.ua [in Ukrainian]

Slovnyk synonimiv ukrainskoi movy: V 2 t. [Dictionary of synonyms of the Ukrainian language: In 2 volumes] / A. A. Buriachok, H. M. Hnatiuk, S. I. Holovashchuk ta in. Kyiv: Nauk. dumka, 2006. Vol. 2.  [in Ukrainian]

Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy: v 11 tomakh [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language: in 11 volumes]. Vol. 1, 1970. URL: http://sum.in.ua [in Ukrainian]

Slovnyk synonimiv ukrainskoi movy: V 2 t. [Dictionary of synonyms of the Ukrainian language: In 2 volumes ] / A.A. Buriachok, H.M. Hnatiuk, S. I. Holovashchuk ta in. Kyiv: Nauk. dumka, 2006. Vol. 1. [in Ukrainian]

Fuley T. Vtruchannia u prava, harantovani statteiu 8 konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod: ukrainskyi vymir [Interference with the rights guaranteed by the Article 8 of the ECHR: Ukrainian dimension]. Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy, Word of the National School of Judges of Ukraine. 2018. 3 (24). P. 41–53. [in Ukrainian]

Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom no. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09: European Court of Human Rights, 15 March 2012. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126823  

Dovidnyk iz zastosuvannia statti 5. Pravo na svobodu ta osobystu nedotorkannist. Stattia 5 Konventsii [Guide on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to liberty and security]. Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights. 2014. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_5_UKR.pdf [in Ukrainian]

Guzzardi v. Italy, no. 7367/67: European Court of Human Rights, 6 November 1980. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57498

De Tommaso v. Italy, no. 43395/09: European Court of Human Rights, 23 February 2017. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-171804  

Dovidnyk iz zastosuvannia statti 8 Yevropeiskoi konventsii z prav liudyny. Pravo na povahu do pryvatnoho i simeinoho zhyttia, zhytla i korespondentsii [Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence]. Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_UKR.pdf [in Ukrainian]  

Kotiy v. Ukraine no. 28718/09: European Court of Human Rights, 5 March 2015 Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-192478

Nada v. Switzerland no. 10593/08: European Court of Human Rights, 12 June 2012 Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126846

 Svoboda peresuvannia u svitli praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny. Videokonferentsiia dlia suddiv [Freedom of movement in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Video conference for judges]. National School of Judges of Ukraine. February 1, 2019. URL: http://nsj.gov.ua/ua/news/svoboda-peresuvannya-u-svitli-praktiki-evropeyskogo-sudu-z-prav-ludini/ [in Ukrainian] 

Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09: European Court of Human Rights, 2 December 2014. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155049  

Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05: European Court of Human Rights, 27 November 2012. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126851  

Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00: European Court of Human Rights, 21 December 2006. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-78792  

Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02: European Court of Human Rights, 2 July 2009. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-126149  

Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05: European Court of Human Rights, 11 July 2013. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122186  

Timishev v. Russia, no. 55762/00, 55974/00: European Court of Human Rights, 13 December 2005. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71627  

Karpacheva and Karpachev v. Russia, no. 34861/04: European Court of Human Rights, 27 January 2011. Retrieved from  http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103084  

Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02: European Court of Human Rights, 22 November 2005. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71202  

 Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02: European Court of Human Rights, 7 December 2006. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-78375  

Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03: European Court of Human Rights, 18 February 2010. Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-97356