FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY: ECTHR APPROACHES

PDF

УДК 342.721

ORCID 0000-0002-8562-0131

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2021-2(35)-3

Oksana KUCHIV,

leading researche, the department

scientific research on the problems of justice and scientific and methodological

providing judicial education of the National School of Judges of Ukraine

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY: ECTHR APPROACHES

The article is devoted to the right to freedom of movement, guaranteed by the Article 2 of the Protocol 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and compliance with the requirement of «necessity in a democratic society» while restricting freedom of movement. The article mentions the implementation of Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention and the case law of the ECtHR by national courts in practice. In particular, it is stated that Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention is most often applied in decisions of the courts of civil jurisdiction (507), less so in cases of the administrative courts (47), although namely administrative justice must protect human rights from arbitrary state interference. Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention is most frequently applied by administrative courts in numerous and uncomplicated cases concerning the registration of a person's place of residence.

 It is noted that freedom of movement includes 3 aspects: free movement, freedom to choose residence and the right to leave any country freely, including one's own. It is emphasized that freedom of movement, even though it is a fundamental freedom, is not absolute and may be restricted under the conditions set out in Article 2 of the Protocol. 

Restrictions on freedom of movement must be necessary in a democratic society. Proportionality is an indirect requirement of necessity in a democratic society. The concept of «necessity in a democratic society» is the most unusual for national jurisprudence.  A study of the ECtHR case law on Article 2 of Protocol 4 shows that freedom of movement is most often violated because the imposed restrictions are not justified in a democratic society. Using the ECtHR case law (judgements «Garib v. The Netherlands», «Soltysyak v. Russia», «Stamose v. Bulgaria», «Bartik v. Russia») revealed (named, described) key aspects (factors) taken into account by the ECtHR when verifying compliance with the criterion of «necessity in a democratic society» and proportionality in the consideration of complaints concerning the restriction of the right to freedom of movement.

It is appropriate to take into account the following factors: the private situation of the person whose right is restricted, the severity of the measure, the duration of restrictions, the availability of judicial review. The circumstances that exist in the state at the time when the restrictions are applied are important. Restrictive measures must be appropriate to the purpose pursued throughout the duration of the restrictions. To determine whether the restriction was proportionate, it is necessary to take into account the dynamic approach to the interpretation of the ECHR, according to which the Convention is a «living" instrument and should be interpreted in the current context.

Key words: freedom of movement, Protocol № 4 to the Convention, ECtHR practice, restrictions, administrative jurisdiction, necessity in a democratic society, proportionality.

References

Tsurkan M. Zakhyst prav liudyny v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi. Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy. 2015. № 4 (13). P. 136–137 [ukr.]

Analitychnyi zvit za rezultatamy monitorynhu sudovykh rishen shchodo zastosuvannia v Ukraini polozhen Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod ta praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny. Avtorskyi kolektyv: Buromenskyi M.V., Serdiuk O.V. Koordynator proektiv OBSIe v Ukraini, H. O. «Instytut prykladnykh humanitarnykh doslidzhen» v mezhakh proektu «Harantuvannia dotrymannia prav liudyny pry zdiisnenni pravosuddia» za finansovoi pidtrymky Ministerstva mizhnarodnykh sprav Kanady. 2018. URL:https://www.osce.org/uk/project-coordinator-in-ukraine/390506 [ukr.]

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

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

Yudkivska H. Pryntsyp proportsiinosti v systemi zakhystu prav liudyny. Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy. 2015. № 4 (13). P. 118–119 [ukr.]

Yevtoshuk Y.O. Pryntsyp proportsiinosti u praktytsi sudiv zahalnykh yurysdyktsii. Pravo i suspilstvo. 2015. № 4 chastyna 3, S. 10. URL: http://pravoisuspilstvo.org.ua/archive/2015/4_2015/part_3/4.pdf[ukr.]

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

Klass and others v. Germany, no. 5029/71: European Court of Human Rights, 6 September 1978. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ukr?i=001-57510 [engl.]

Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05: European Court of Human Rights, 23 February 2012. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ukr?i=001-109197 [ukr.]

 SvobodaperesuvanniausvitlipraktykyYevropeiskohosuduzpravliudyny. Videokonferentsiia dlia suddiv. 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/ [ukr.] 

Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05: European Court of Human Rights, 10 February 2011. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103354[engl.]

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