Derogation in the time of Coronavirus — Nicholas Clapham

15 April 2020 by

The flag of the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe has issued guidance to member states contemplating derogation from the European Convention of Human Rights during the coronavirus pandemic: Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights in the framework of the COVID-19 sanitary crisis: A Toolkit for Member States (SG/Inf(2020)11).

Derogation under the Convention is governed by Article 15 which states:

In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under [the] Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

A “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” is defined as “an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community of which the State is composed” (Lawless v Ireland (No 3) App no 332/57 (A/3), [1961] ECHR 2).

In the guidance the Council acknowledges that measures undertaken during the crisis

will inevitably encroach on rights and freedoms which are an integral and necessary part of a democratic society governed by the rule of law

While this does not mean that derogation is required in all cases, it is accepted that where exceptional measures are necessary, derogation may be justified. The guidance recognises that the measures required will vary depending upon the specific situation in a member state and reminds states of the large margin of appreciation that the ECHR usually affords to states in their assessments both of the existence of such an emergency and of the nature and scope of derogations necessary to confront it.

The crux of the guidance is to stress that even in an emergency situation, the rule of law must prevail. In this regard any emergency laws should comply with domestic constitutional and international law and standards. Crucially, throughout any derogation, legislatures must retain the power to control executive action. There should also be clear time limits on any exceptional measures and the guidance specifically endorses the use of sunset clauses as can be found in the UK’s Coronavirus Act 2020. In this context a useful examination of sunset clauses by Sean Molloy can be found here and on this blog Darragh Coffey has analysed the ramifications of the Act here and here.

For Hungary, where some of the most severe measures have been enacted without a time limit, Marija Pejcinovic Buric, Secretary-General of the Council, had previously written to its Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, to point out that:

An indefinite and uncontrolled state of emergency cannot guarantee that the basic principles of democracy will be observed and that the emergency measures restricting fundamental human rights are strictly proportionate to the threat which they are supposed to counter.

The significant restrictions to everyday social activities across many countries, including UK, such as freedom of movement, access to public spaces and places of worship, and public gatherings including wedding and funeral ceremonies, may lead to complaints under the rights to private life, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of association. The guidance underlines that it is for the authorities to ensure that any such restriction, whether arising from a derogation or not, ‘is clearly established by law’. 

Rosalind English and others on this blog have pointed out the gaps between UK law (Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 350)) and the supporting Government guidance published days some days after the legal restrictions came into effect. There is also a discussion of the status of the Coronavirus Regulations on this blog here.

So far nine member states have entered derogations (largely to Articles 8 and 11) as a result of the crisis. Hungary is not one of them and nor is the UK. A list of current derogations can be found here.

Nicholas Clapham is a Teaching Fellow in Law at the University of Surrey

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

%d bloggers like this: