The Convention, which was inspired in part by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was drafted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, entered into force in 1953. As of 15 April 2002, there are 42 parties. The Convention is largely confined to civil and political rights, including the right to life (Art. 2), freedom from torture (Art. 3), the right to respect for one's private and family life (Art. 8), freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Art. 9), freedom of expression (Art. 10), and freedom of peaceful assembly (Art. 11). The European Social Charter, which entered into force in 1965, is concerned with the protection of various social and economic rights by member states of the Council of Europe.
Perhaps the most radical and innovatory features of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are the remedies conferred on victims of alleged human rights violations and the machinery of enforcement. Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, on 1 November 1998, a victim of an alleged violation of the Convention or of its Protocols, by one of the contracting states, may submit an application directly to the European Court of Human Rights, located in Strasbourg, France (Art. 34). Prior to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, victims of alleged human rights violations could petition the European Commission on Human Rights (now abolished) provided that the defendant state had accepted the right of individual petition. However, the Commission lacked the power to adopt binding decisions and victims were unable to refer a dispute to the Court, although a limited exception to this was introduced as late as 1994 by Protocol No. 9.
In accordance with Protocol No. 11, submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, provided they are held to be admissible, are examined by a Chamber of the Court consisting of seven judges. In some circumstances, the examination may be conducted by a Grand Chamber consisting of seventeen judges (Art. 30). The parties to a case may opt for a friendly settlement and may be assisted in securing such a settlement by the Court (Art. 38(1)(b)). Failing this, the Court will proceed to a judgment. In ‘exceptional cases’, following the judgment of a Chamber, any party to the case may refer it to a Grand Chamber (Art. 43). The powers of the European Court of Human Rights are comparable to those of national courts. Thus, contracting states ‘undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties’ (Art. 46(1) ). If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention it may, in some circumstances, award ‘just satisfaction’ to the injured party, covering legal expenses, loss of earnings, etc. (Art. 41).
The judgments of the Court have had a significant impact on the protection of civil liberties in Europe. Since the early 1990s, many ex-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe have become members of the Council of Europe and parties to the Convention. As a consequence, the European Court of Human Rights has come to play an increasingly critical role in securing appropriate levels of human rights protection in the former Communist states.
The United Kingdom, which is the only state in Europe that lacks a written constitution, enacted the Human Rights Act 1998 to incorporate the Convention into its domestic law. Under the Act, Parliament remains free to pass legislation contrary to the Convention and the Act itself may be amended or repealed in the ordinary way.
— Istvan Pogany
