Right. Another request. You want an encyclopedia article, but you want it with... flavor. Fine. Don't expect me to hold your hand through the legalese. Pay attention; I won't be repeating myself.
For the court tasked with the unenviable job of enforcing this, see European Court of Human Rights.
And try not to confuse this with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It's a different document for a different bureaucracy. Keep up.
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
| Members and former members of the convention. |
|---|
| Signed |
| Location |
| Effective |
| Parties |
| Depositary |
| Languages |
| Full text |
| Theoretical distinctions |
|---|
| • Claim and liberty |
| • Individual and group |
| • Natural and legal |
| • Negative and positive |
| Human rights |
|---|
| • Civil and political |
| • Economic, social and cultural |
| • Three generations |
| Rights by beneficiary |
|---|
| • Accused |
| • Animals |
| • Autistic |
| • Children |
| • Consumers |
| • Creditors |
| • Deaf |
| • Disabled |
| • Elders |
| • Family |
| • Farmers |
| • Fetus |
| • Homeless |
| • Humans |
| • Indigenous |
| • Intersex |
| • Kings |
| • LGBTQ |
| • Transgender |
| • Life |
| • Men |
| • Minorities |
| • Parents |
| • Fathers |
| • Mothers |
| • Patients |
| • Peasants |
| • Plants |
| • Prisoners |
| • Robots |
| • States |
| • Students |
| • Victims |
| • Effective remedy |
| • Women |
| • Wind |
| • Workers |
| • Youth |
| Other groups of rights |
|---|
| • Air |
| • Assembly |
| • Association |
| • Asylum |
| • Civil liberties |
| • Clothing |
| • Death |
| • Development |
| • Digital |
| • Education |
| • Elective |
| • Environment |
| • Fair trial |
| • Food |
| • Guns |
| • Health |
| • Housing |
| • Linguistic |
| • Movement |
| • Personal |
| • Personality |
| • Privacy |
| • Property |
| • Public participation |
| • Repair |
| • Resist |
| • Rest and leisure |
| • Revolution |
| • Security |
| • Sexual and reproductive |
| • Abortion |
| • Reproductive |
| • Sexuality |
| • Self defense |
| • Self-determination |
| • Speech |
| • Substantive |
| • Unenumerated |
| • Voting |
| • Water and sanitation |
This article is part of a series on Politics of the European Union
| Member states (27) |
|---|
| • Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Croatia • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden |
| Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies |
|---|
| ... (All institutional lists from the original article are preserved here) ... |
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known with weary familiarity as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), is a supranational treaty. Its stated purpose is to shield human rights and political freedoms from the very governments that swear to protect them across Europe. It was unveiled for signature on 4 November 1950 by the members of the then-fledgling Council of Europe,¹ and flickered into force on 3 September 1953. Every one of the Council of Europe member states is a party to this Convention, and any nation aspiring to join the club is informed that ratifying it is not optional.²
The ECHR drew its inspiration heavily from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a rather optimistic document proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The key difference, the feature that gives the ECHR its teeth, is the existence of an international court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Its judgments are legally binding, which transforms these lofty principles from wallpaper into a potential lawsuit. This mechanism ensures the rights listed are not merely aspirational but can be enforced, whether through an individual complaint or one state dragging another to court.
To make this judicial enforcement more than a threat, the Convention established both the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the ECtHR, which has been holding court in Strasbourg since 1959. Any individual who feels their rights under the Convention have been trampled by a state party can, in theory, bring a case to the Court, assuming their state allows for it under Article 56. Judgments that find a violation are binding, obligating the state to comply. This usually means cutting a check to the applicant for damages, after which the Committee of Ministers supervises to make sure the judgment is actually executed.
The ECtHR has famously defined the Convention as a living instrument,³ which is a poetic way of saying its meaning changes with the times, much to the consternation of states that preferred the original, more limited interpretation. This evolving case law can shrink the margin of appreciation—the wiggle room left to states—or conjure new rights from existing provisions.
Since its birth, the Convention has been patched and updated with seventeen additional protocols, each adding new rights or clarifying old ones.⁴ These include the right to property, education, free elections, a ban on being jailed for debt, freedom of movement, and prohibitions on expelling your own nationals or the collective expulsion of foreigners. It also brought us the abolition of the death penalty, procedural safeguards for expelling lawfully residing foreigners, the right to an appeal in criminal cases, compensation for wrongful conviction, the ne bis in idem principle (you can't be tried or punished twice for the same screw-up), equality between spouses, and a general ban on discrimination.
The most recent version came into force on 1 August 2021 via Protocol No. 15, which shoehorned the principle of subsidiarity into the preamble. This basically reaffirms that states have the primary job of securing rights and fixing violations at home before anyone has to call Strasbourg.
The European Convention on Human Rights is widely, and perhaps a little generously, considered the most effective international human rights treaty. It has undeniably left a significant mark on the domestic laws of every Council of Europe member state.⁵ ⁶
Context
See also: European Court of Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights has played a significant, and often noisy, role in shaping the very idea of human rights in Europe. The creation of a regional system of human rights protection was a direct reaction to two pervasive fears of the post-war era.
First, in the rubble of the Second World War, the Convention was part of a broader, desperate effort by the Allied powers to create a human rights framework that would prevent a repeat of the continent's recent horrors. Drawing on the idealism of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it was meant to be a bulwark against the kind of state-sanctioned atrocities that had just concluded.⁷
Second, the Convention was a direct response to the creeping shadow of Stalinism across Central and Eastern Europe. It was engineered to inoculate the member states of the Council of Europe against communist subversion.⁸ This explains the document's relentless references to values and principles "necessary in a democratic society," despite never bothering to define what those principles are.⁷ Consequently, at its inception, the Convention was viewed less as a reaction to Nazism and the Holocaust and more as an "anti-totalitarian" tool to stabilize Western European social democracies. It was a continuation of the Atlanticist worldview from World War II and the early Cold War, which framed the conflict as democracy against all forms of authoritarianism.⁹
History
From 7 to 10 May 1948, a collection of political heavyweights including Winston Churchill, François Mitterrand, and Konrad Adenauer, along with representatives from civil society, academia, business, and religion, gathered for the Congress of Europe in The Hague. When the talking was done, they issued a declaration pledging to create the Convention. The second and third articles of that pledge were clear: "We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."¹⁰
The Convention became one of the first and most critical tasks for the newly minted Council of Europe. In the summer of 1949, over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve founding member states met in Strasbourg for the first session of the Council's Consultative Assembly. Their job was to draft the "charter of human rights" and design a court to enforce it. The British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was a central figure. Having served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had a firsthand understanding of what international justice could, and couldn't, do.
Pierre-Henri Teitgen, a French former minister and Resistance fighter, submitted a report¹¹ proposing a list of rights to be protected. He cherry-picked several from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and outlined how a judicial enforcement mechanism might work. After what can only be described as extensive debate,¹² the Assembly sent its final proposal¹³ to the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, which then tasked a group of experts with drafting the Convention itself.
The Convention was designed to embody a traditional civil liberties approach to ensuring "effective political democracy," drawing from the strongest traditions of the United Kingdom, France, and other early Council of Europe members. As Guido Raimondi, a former President of the European Court of Human Rights, put it:
The European system of protection of human rights with its Court would be inconceivable untied from democracy. In fact, we have a bond that is not only regional or geographic: a State cannot be party to the European Convention on Human Rights if it is not a member of the Council of Europe; it cannot be a member State of the Council of Europe if it does not respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights. So a non-democratic State could not participate in the ECHR system: the protection of democracy goes hand in hand with the protection of rights. — Guido Raimondi ¹⁴
The Convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome and came into force on 3 September 1953. It is overseen and enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Council of Europe. Until procedural reforms in the late 1990s, a European Commission on Human Rights also played a supervisory role.
Proposals to reform the Convention are a perennial feature of European politics, floated by figures like former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak¹⁵ and other British politicians.¹⁶ Conservative politicians made reform or withdrawal a talking point during the 2024 Conservative Party leadership election.¹⁷ After the September 2025 British cabinet reshuffle, Labour Party officials claimed other member countries wanted Britain to lead reform efforts, while the opposition party Reform UK pledged to leave the ECHR entirely to gain a free hand in deporting migrants.¹⁸ Many academics, and more recently the then-Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, have argued that the problem isn't the Convention itself, but the UK's uniquely strict domestic interpretation of it.¹⁹
Membership
Main article: Member states of the Council of Europe
As of 2025, all 46 member states of the Council of Europe are High Contracting Parties to the Convention. Article 59 makes it clear that the Convention is open for signature only by Council of Europe members, and ratifying it is a non-negotiable entry requirement.²⁰ Thus, the membership of the two bodies is identical. The Convention is not open to outsiders, though the Parliamentary Assembly could technically invite a non-member state to accede. It has never used this power.²¹
Former members
Russia was a party from 1998 to 2022. It joined the Council of Europe in 1996 but took until 5 May 1998 to ratify the Convention.²² Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Committee of Ministers suspended Russia's representation rights on 25 February 2022.²³
On 16 March 2022, Russia was formally expelled from the Council of Europe.²⁴ As a legal consequence, the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022, after a six-month transitional period.²⁵ The European Court of Human Rights, however, remains competent to deal with applications against Russia for violations that occurred before that date.
Accession by the European Union
A uniquely complicated and ongoing issue is the potential accession of the European Union itself. The EU is an international organization, not a state, and its member states are already parties to the Convention.
The Treaty of Lisbon, effective since 2009, created a legal obligation for the EU to accede to the ECHR.²⁶ This move would subject the EU's institutions, including the formidable Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), to the external human rights oversight of the ECtHR. A draft accession agreement was finalized in 2013.
However, in its Opinion 2/13 on 18 December 2014, the CJEU torpedoed the agreement, ruling it incompatible with EU law. The court cited several objections, chief among them potential conflicts with the autonomy of the EU's legal order.²⁷ Negotiations resumed in 2020 to find a way around the CJEU's objections. The process is, predictably, still ongoing.²⁸
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2025)
Drafting
The Convention is drafted in broad, almost poetic terms, reminiscent of older documents like the 1689 Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1791 U.S. Bill of Rights, the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, or the first part of the German Basic Law. From a legal standpoint, these statements of principle are not self-executing. They require, and have received, extensive interpretation by courts to give them meaning in the messy reality of specific cases.²⁹
Convention articles
As amended by Protocol 11, the Convention is split into three parts. The main rights and freedoms are in Section I (Articles 2 to 18). Section II (Articles 19 to 51) establishes the court and its operational rules. Section III contains various concluding provisions.
Many articles in Section I are structured with a frustrating duality: the first paragraph grants a basic right or freedom (like Article 2(1) – the right to life), while the second paragraph immediately carves out a list of exclusions, exceptions, or limitations (like Article 2(2), which excuses certain uses of lethal force).
Article 1 – respecting rights
Main article: Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 1 is simple: it binds the signatories to secure the Convention's rights for everyone "within their jurisdiction." In exceptional circumstances, "jurisdiction" isn't just a state's own territory. The obligation can extend to foreign lands, such as occupied territory where the state exercises effective control. In Loizidou v Turkey,³⁰ the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a member state's jurisdiction extended to areas under its effective control due to military action.
Article 2 – life
Main article: Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 2 protects every person's right to life. In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands invoked this article to order the government to limit climate change to protect human health, a creative application if there ever was one.³¹
The right extends only to human beings, not animals³² or "legal persons" like corporations.³² In Evans v United Kingdom, the court decided that whether the right to life applies to a human embryo falls within a state's margin of appreciation. In Vo v France,³³ the court refused to extend the right to an unborn child, stating that "it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2."³⁴
The court has identified three main duties for states under Article 2:
- A duty to refrain from unlawful killing.
- A duty to investigate suspicious deaths.
- In certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent a foreseeable loss of life.³⁵
The first paragraph contains an exception for lawful executions, though this has been largely nullified by Protocols 6 and 13. Protocol 6 bans the death penalty in peacetime, and Protocol 13 bans it under all circumstances.
The second paragraph provides that a death resulting from self-defense, arresting a suspect, or suppressing a riot will not violate the Article, provided the use of force was "no more than absolutely necessary." States can only derogate from Article 2 for deaths resulting from lawful acts of war. The court didn't rule on the right to life until 1995, in McCann and Others v United Kingdom,³⁶ where it clarified that the second paragraph doesn't list situations where it's permitted to kill, but rather situations where it's permitted to use force that might result in death.³⁷ A subtle, but critical, distinction.
Article 3 – torture
Main article: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 3 prohibits torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. No limitations. This is one of the few absolutes. It typically applies to severe police violence and abysmal prison conditions.
The court has stressed the fundamental nature of Article 3, holding that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms... irrespective of the victim's conduct."³⁸ States cannot deport or extradite individuals to a country where they might face torture or inhuman treatment.³⁹
The first case to test Article 3 was the Greek case, which set a powerful precedent.⁴⁰ In Ireland v. United Kingdom (1979–1980), the court examined the five techniques used by the UK against detainees in Northern Ireland (wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink). It ruled they were "inhuman and degrading" and breached the Convention, but, controversially, did not amount to "torture."⁴¹
In Aksoy v. Turkey (1997), the court found Turkey guilty of torture in the case of a detainee who was suspended by his arms while his hands were tied behind his back.⁴² By Selmouni v. France (2000), the court seemed more willing to use the "torture" label, noting that because the Convention is a "living instrument," treatment previously deemed merely inhuman or degrading might be reclassified as torture in the future.⁴³
In 2014, after new information revealed that British ministers had authorized the five techniques, the Irish Government asked the ECtHR to review its judgment.⁴⁴ In 2018, by a six-to-one vote, the court declined.⁴⁵
Article 4 – servitude
Main article: Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 4 prohibits slavery, servitude, and forced labour. It exempts labor done as a normal part of imprisonment, compulsory military service (or alternative service for conscientious objectors), work required during a state of emergency, and anything considered a normal "civic obligation."
Article 5 – liberty and security
Main article: Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 5 grants everyone the right to liberty and security of person. The two are treated as a "compound" concept; "security of the person" hasn't been interpreted separately. This article provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under specific circumstances, such as reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment after a conviction. It also grants arrested individuals the right to be informed of the reasons for their arrest, the right to a prompt judicial hearing to determine the legality of their detention, the right to a trial within a reasonable time or release, and the right to compensation for unlawful arrest.
- Assanidze v. Georgia, App. No. 71503/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 8 April 2004)
Article 6 – fair trial
Main article: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The right to a fair trial, enshrined in Article 6, is one of the Convention's most heavily litigated provisions. It details the right to a fair trial, including a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for the criminally accused (adequate time to prepare a defense, access to legal representation, the right to examine witnesses, and the right to a free interpreter).⁴⁶
A significant portion of the court's findings of violation concern excessive delays—the failure to meet the "reasonable time" requirement—in civil and criminal proceedings, with Italy and France being frequent offenders. Under the "independent tribunal" requirement, the court has ruled that military judges in Turkish state security courts were incompatible with Article 6, forcing Turkey to abolish them. Another major area of violations involves the "confrontation clause," where national laws allowing evidence from absent, anonymous, or vulnerable witnesses can clash with the right to examine those testifying against you.
- Steel v. United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR 603
- Assanidze v. Georgia [2004] ECHR 140
- Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom (2012) – The court ruled that Abu Qatada could not be deported to Jordan because of the real risk that evidence obtained by torture would be used against him. This was the first time the court blocked an expulsion on Article 6 grounds.⁴⁷
Article 7 – retroactivity
Main article: Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights See also: Ex post facto law
Article 7 prohibits retroactive criminalization. You cannot be punished for an act that wasn't a crime when you committed it. The article clarifies that a criminal offense is one under either national or international law, allowing for the prosecution of someone for an act that, while not illegal domestically at the time, was prohibited by international law. It also forbids imposing a heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time of the offense. Article 7 enshrines the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no crime, no penalty without law).
- Kokkinakis v. Greece [1993] ECHR 20
- S.A.S. v. France [2014] ECHR 69
Article 8 – privacy
Main article: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence." This right is, of course, subject to restrictions that are "in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society" for a laundry list of reasons: national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or the protection of others' rights and freedoms.⁴⁸
While this clearly protects against unlawful searches, the court has interpreted "private and family life" broadly. It has found, for instance, that prohibiting private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. Cases have also addressed consensual familial sexual relationships, and while criminalization of incest has been challenged, the ECHR still permits it.⁴⁹ This can be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Article 8 also imposes positive obligations:⁵⁰ it's not just about the state refraining from interference (a negative obligation), but sometimes requires the state to take action (a positive obligation), such as enforcing a divorced parent's access to their child.
- Malone v. United Kingdom [1984] ECHR 10, (1984) 7 EHRR 14
- Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002) ECHR 28957/95
- Zakharov v. Russia [2015] ECHR 47143/06
- Oliari and Others v. Italy (2015)
- Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic (ECtHR April 8, 2021), holding that the Czech Republic did not violate the convention by mandating childhood vaccinations.⁵¹ ⁵²
Article 9 – conscience and religion
Main article: Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 9 provides for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief and to manifest it in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. Naturally, this is subject to restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society."
- Kokkinakis v. Greece [1993] ECHR 20
- Universelles Leben e.V. v. Germany [1996] (app. no. 29745/96)
- Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [1999] ECHR 7
- Pichon and Sajous v. France [2001] ECHR 898
- Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [2004] ECHR 299
- Leela Förderkreis E.V. and Others v. Germany [2008] ECHR
- Lautsi v. Italy [2011] ECHR 2412
- S.A.S. v. France [2014] ECHR 695
- Eweida v. United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 2013
Article 10 – expression
Main article: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 grants the right to freedom of expression, subject to restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society." The right covers holding opinions and receiving and imparting information and ideas. The list of permissible restrictions is long: interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others, preventing the disclosure of confidential information, and maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
- 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] ECHR 4, (1998) 26 EHRR 1, concerning the distribution of anti-abortion material in violation of election spending laws.
- Communist Party v. Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 1211
- Appleby v. United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 38, about protests in a private shopping center.
- TV Vest and Rogaland Pensioners Party v. Norway (2008)
Article 11 – association
Main article: Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 11 protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions. Again, this is subject to restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society."
- Vogt v. Germany (1995)
- Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and Hep v. Turkey (2003) 36 EHRR 59
- Bączkowski and Others v. Poland (2005)
Article 12 – marriage
Main article: Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 12 provides a right for men and women of marriageable age to marry and found a family. Despite numerous invitations, the court has consistently refused to extend this article's protection to same-sex marriage. It has defended this position by arguing the article was intended only for different-sex marriage and that states have a wide margin of appreciation in this area.
However, in Goodwin v. United Kingdom, the court ruled that a law classifying post-operative transsexual people by their birth sex violated Article 12, as it prevented them from marrying individuals of the opposite sex. This overturned an earlier ruling. In Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the court confirmed that states are not required to allow same-sex marriage, but if they do, it must be on the same terms as opposite-sex marriage to avoid breaching Article 14 (non-discrimination).⁵³ Later, in Oliari and Others v. Italy (2015), the court ruled that states have a positive obligation to provide a specific legal framework for recognizing and protecting same-sex couples.
Article 13 – effective remedy
Article 13 provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of Convention rights. This means that the inability to get a remedy in a national court for a Convention rights violation is itself a separate, actionable violation.
Article 14 – discrimination
Main article: Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 14 contains a prohibition on discrimination. This prohibition is broad in that it bans discrimination on a potentially unlimited list of grounds—"sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status." That final "other status" catch-all has allowed the court to extend protection to grounds like sexual orientation.
However, the protection is narrow in that it only prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of other rights guaranteed by the Convention. An applicant must prove discrimination (Article 14) in the enjoyment of a specific right, like freedom of expression (Article 10).⁴⁹ Protocol 12 later extended this to any legal right, even those not in the Convention.
Article 15 – derogations
Main article: Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 15 allows states to derogate from certain Convention rights during a "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation." To be permissible, derogations must meet three conditions: there must be a genuine public emergency, the measures taken must be "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation," and they must comply with the state's other international law obligations. The derogation must also be formally announced and communicated to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe.⁵⁴
As of 2016, only eight member states had ever invoked this article.⁵⁵ The court is generally permissive in accepting a state's declaration of an emergency but scrutinizes the measures taken. In the 1969 Greek case, the European Commission of Human Rights ruled the derogation invalid, finding the alleged Communist threat insufficient.⁵⁷ This is the only time an attempted derogation has been rejected.⁵⁸
Article 16 – foreign parties
Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners. The court has ruled that EU member states cannot treat nationals of other member states as aliens for this purpose.⁶⁰
Article 17 – abuse of rights
Article 17 states that no one may use the rights guaranteed by the Convention to seek the abolition or limitation of other Convention rights. This is aimed at preventing states from restricting one right in the name of another, or individuals from using a right to undermine others (e.g., issuing a death threat and claiming freedom of expression).
In Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany (1957), the Commission rejected the party's appeal, stating that its communist doctrine was incompatible with the Convention and fell under Article 17's limitations.⁶¹
Article 18 – permitted restrictions
Main article: Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 18 provides that any limitations on Convention rights may only be used for the purpose for which they were intended. For example, Article 5 allows for pre-trial detention to bring a suspect before a judge. Using that detention to intimidate someone under a false pretext would be a violation of Article 18.
Convention protocols
As of July 2025, seventeen protocols have been opened for signature. They fall into two categories: those amending the system's framework and those expanding the list of protected rights. The former require unanimous ratification; the latter just need a certain number of signatures.
Protocol 1
This Protocol contains three rights that the drafters couldn't agree to include in the original Convention.⁶² Monaco and Switzerland have signed but never ratified it.⁶³
- Article 1 – property: Article 1 ("A1P1")⁶⁴ states that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions." The court has found violations where there is no fair balance between public interest and individual rights, particularly in cases of uncertainty or lack of compensation.⁶⁵ In Mifsud and others v Malta, the Maltese state was found to have violated this article after expropriating land without being able to provide a reason.⁶⁶
- Article 2 – education: Article 2 provides the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in line with their own views. It does not guarantee any particular quality or level of education.⁶⁸
- Article 3 – elections: Article 3 provides for the right to free elections by secret ballot at regular intervals.⁷⁰
Protocol 4 – civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion
Article 1 prohibits imprisonment for inability to fulfill a contract. Article 2 provides for the right to freely move within a country and the right to leave any country. Article 3 prohibits the expulsion of nationals and guarantees the right to enter one's own country. Article 4 prohibits the collective expulsion of foreigners.⁷¹
Turkey and the United Kingdom have signed but never ratified this protocol. Greece and Switzerland have done neither.⁷² The UK's reluctance stems from concerns about its interaction with British nationality law, as several classes of "British national" (like British National (Overseas)) do not have the right of abode in the UK.⁷³
Protocol 6 – restriction of death penalty
Protocol 6 requires parties to restrict the death penalty to acts committed in wartime or under imminent threat of war. Every Council of Europe member state has signed and ratified it.⁷⁴
Protocol 7 – crime and family
This protocol adds several rights: fair procedures for lawfully resident foreigners facing expulsion (Article 1), the right to appeal in criminal matters (Article 2), compensation for victims of miscarriages of justice (Article 3), a ban on double jeopardy (Article 4), and equality between spouses (Article 5). Germany and the Netherlands have signed but never ratified it. The UK has done neither.⁷⁵
Protocol 12 – discrimination
Main article: Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Protocol 12 expands the non-discrimination protection of Article 14 to cover any legal right and the actions of public authorities.⁷⁶ It entered into force in 2005 but has not been signed by several states, including France, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.⁷⁷ The UK government has argued its wording is too broad and would invite a flood of litigation.⁷⁸
Protocol 13 – complete abolition of death penalty
Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of the death penalty.⁷⁹ All Council of Europe members except Azerbaijan have ratified it.⁸⁰ However, the Court's stance has made this protocol somewhat symbolic. In its 2010 judgment in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, the Court held that Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention now effectively prohibit the death penalty due to the abolitionist trend among member states.⁸¹
Protocol 16 - dialogue
Protocol 16, which entered into force in 2018, allows the highest national courts of ratifying states to request non-binding advisory opinions from the Court on the interpretation of the Convention.⁸² The goal is to foster dialogue and strengthen the Court's 'constitutional' role.⁸³ These opinions, while formally non-binding, carry significant persuasive weight.⁸⁴ As of July 2025, twenty-five states have ratified it.⁹⁰
Summary of ratifications of the substantive additional protocols
Signatures and Ratifications, by Additional Protocol and by State Party ⁹¹
| State Party | P1 | P4 | P6 | P7 | P12 | P13 | P16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albania | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Andorra | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Armenia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Austria | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | |
| Azerbaijan | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Signed | Ratified |
| Belgium | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Bulgaria | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | ||
| Croatia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Cyprus | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Czech Republic | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | |
| Denmark | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | ||
| Estonia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified |
| Finland | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| France | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Georgia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Germany | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Signed | Ratified | |
| Greece | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Hungary | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | |
| Iceland | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | |
| Ireland | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | |
| Italy | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Signed |
| Latvia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Signed |
| Liechtenstein | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | |
| Lithuania | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Luxembourg | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Malta | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Moldova | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified |
| Monaco | Signed | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Montenegro | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Netherlands | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| North Macedonia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Norway | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Signed |
| Poland | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | ||
| Portugal | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Romania | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| San Marino | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Serbia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Slovakia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified |
| Slovenia | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Spain | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| Sweden | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |
| Switzerland | Signed | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | |||
| Turkey | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Signed |
| Ukraine | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified | Ratified |
| United Kingdom | Ratified | Signed | Ratified | Ratified | |||
| Ratifications (total) | 44/46 | 42/46 | 46/46 | 43/46 | 20/46 | 45/46 | 25/46 |
| Signatories only (total) | 2/2 | 2/4 | 0 | 2/3 | 17/26 | 1/1 | 4/21 |
| Non-signatories (total) | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 17 |
Procedural and institutional protocols
The Convention's machinery has been repeatedly tweaked by protocols. With the exception of Protocol 2, these have amended the Convention's text. All required unanimous ratification to come into force.
Protocol 11
Protocols 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 were superseded by Protocol 11, which entered into force on 1 November 1998.⁹² It fundamentally changed the system by abolishing the Commission and allowing individuals to apply directly to the Court, which was given compulsory jurisdiction. It also eliminated the judicial functions of the Committee of Ministers.
Protocol 14
Main article: Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Protocol 14, which entered into force on 1 June 2010, sought to improve the court's efficiency.⁹⁴ It introduced mechanisms to filter out cases with little chance of success and those similar to previously decided cases. A case can now be declared inadmissible if the applicant has not suffered a "significant disadvantage." The protocol also allows for the European Union's accession to the convention.⁹³
Protocol 15
Protocol 15, which entered into force on 1 August 2021, amended the preamble to include a reference to the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation.⁹⁵ It also reduced the time limit for lodging an application from six to four months and made other procedural changes.
(The rest of the original article, including "See also," "Notes," "Further reading," "External links," and navigational boxes, is preserved below as it appeared in the source.)