Convention Rights page updated

6 May 2017 by

We have finished an overhaul of the Convention rights pages to reflect recent political and legal developments since they were last reviewed. The most important of these is the vote to leave the European Union and what implications this might have for the UK’s obligations under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. For the moment I have left in place the editorial material matching each of the Charter rights with the Convention rights but the Charter and the role of the ECJ in UK legal affairs may be one of the first features of the post-Brexit landscape to change (see Marina Wheeler’s post on how that court might have overstepped the mark with the Charter, and David Hart’s discussion on the topic of ECJ muscle-flexing here, here and here).

The task of updating the discussion on individual rights is in itself revealing. No progress has been made on the right to die with dignity since Diane Pretty took her case all the way up through the UK courts to Strasbourg, although we might draw some comfort from the decision by the Appeal Court in Conway to allow him to proceed with a challenge to the ban on assisted dying.

Arguments based on the prohibition on degrading treatment under Article 3 may be less effective than they were in deportation cases as signatory states’ medical and social services become more pressed; foreign nationals cannot oppose removal orders on the basis that welfare in destination states is inadequate.

The expansion of Article 4 to cover human trafficking is a bleak reflection on modern life; there was a time that the prohibition on slavery felt like something of an anachronism. But now that provision has had to be dusted off to persuade governments to double down on human exploitation. On the other hand, efforts by the UK government to control this trafficking by obstructing forced marriage arrangements have been frustrated by Article 8.

When it comes to the concept of the “family”, the formerly expansionist Strasbourg Court is having difficulty finding a place to stand.  Transsexuals have no right to adopt under this provision, although more recently an argument that the refusal of adoption to a lesbian applicant breached her right to family life succeeded before the Grand Chamber.  But the right to marry under Article 12 remains within its orthodox box, entitling only those individuals of opposite biological sex. Neither Article 8 nor Article 12 have prevailed as rights of access to modern reproductive technology. It seems that for the time being at least the Convention authorities prefer to leave people to prosecute their own search for reproductive success without the help of enforceable civil rights. But Article 14, which prohibits discrimination, has been found to cover discrimination on the basis of genetic disease (haemophiliacs who suffer from thalassemia). The Court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Article 14 “does not mention health, genetic characteristics or handicap amongst the bases upon which discrimination is prohibited.” The list of motivations for discrimination under Article 14 is “not exhaustive”, and therefore genetic disease constitutes a prohibited ground for discrimination derived from factors “external to the Convention, such as the EU Charter on fundamental rights and freedoms” ((Article 21).  This ruling is interesting not only because the Court chose to rely upon the EU Charter of which prohibits discrimination on “genetic features”); it reflects the explosion in genomic data and the ability to diagnose  susceptibility to future disease, based on DNA. Life insurance companies, mortgage lenders and employers take note.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: