to inform public officials about the State's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights

This toolkit aims to provide officials of the States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention") with information and practical guidance to equip them to respect the Convention rights of the people they deal with, fulfil the State's Convention obligations and so, as far as possible, avoid breaches of the Convention.

Who this toolkit is for?

The toolkit is primarily for officials working in the justice system and for those responsible for law enforcement or for the deprivation of a person's liberty. Specifically, that will nclude (but not be limited to) police, prison officers, immigration officers and workers in secure psychiatric institutions or other institutions providing care to vulnerable persons.

More widely, the toolkit is also for any official who interacts with the public in ways which raise potential issues of Convention rights, for instance social workers, registrars and licensing authority officials.

It is not designed for judges, lawyers or senior civil servants, but for those "at the sharp end". It assumes no prior legal knowledge.

The toolkit contains, in particular:

  • A guide to the rights conferred by the Convention and its Protocols and to the corresponding obligations of the State, following the order in which the provisions appear. Those provisions which most often arise in the work of the officials for whom this toolkit has been written are covered in much greater detail than those which rarely arise. The toolkit does not aim to cover all potential issues, as a legal textbook would; it concentrates selectively on the most significant and frequently encountered ones.
  • Questions and checklists highlighting points to consider, to help officials decide whether a potential issue under the Convention arises.

The Convention and how it works

The Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (to give the Convention its official title) is an international treaty between the States (currently 47) members of the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the European Union). The Council of Europe was set up after the Second World War as an international organisation for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Convention was adopted in 1950. States become bound to abide by the obligations of the Convention when they become party to it by ratification. All the member States have ratified the Convention.

There are a number of optional Protocols to the Convention, which supplement its provisions by adding to the substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention. Member States may choose whether to accept the optional Protocols by ratifying them, and not all States have accepted all the optional Protocols. You should check which of the optional Protocols have been ratified by your State on the Council of Europe Treaty Office website.

Please note: We invite you to send us any suggestions that may improve the content or the presentation of this website. Please feel free to fill in this information on the contact form provided for this purpose.

Zurück Freedom of expression

Paragraph 1 states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises".

Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy and key to the enjoyment of many other rights. The right protected is very widely drawn, going far beyond the freedom of the press. It covers political speech, commercial speech and artistic expression. The Court has stressed its constitutional importance and said interference can be justified only by imperative necessities and exceptions must be interpreted narrowly. It has also said expression protected by Paragraph 1 includes "not only ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive… but also those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population". So opinions that might be regarded as extreme and offensive and art that might be considered obscene may in principle be expressed and displayed, subject to the qualified exceptions in paragraph 2, which are to be interpreted narrowly. The presumption is in favour of free expression.

Paragraph 2 sets out the qualifications to the right, in the common pattern explained above, requiring restrictions to be (i) prescribed by law, (ii) for a permitted purpose and (iii) necessary in a democratic society, proportionate and non-discriminatory (see paragraphs 73 to 75 above). But this article also recognises that the exercise of freedom of expression "carries with it duties and responsibilities". These words have been used by the Court, for example, to justify restrictions on public servants' participation in political activities (Ahmed and others v. the United Kingdom).

The permitted aims for restrictions, formalities, conditions or penalties are:

  • national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
  • prevention of disorder or crime;
  • protection of health or morals;
  • protection of the reputation or rights of others;
  • preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence;
  • maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Few of the many cases decided on freedom of expression have complained of the actions of police or other officials dealing directly with the public. Usually the complaint concerns either the national laws applied, or the actions of senior officials, prosecutors or the courts in deciding to forbid the expression of unwelcome opinions or ideas or prosecute and convict people for expressing them. For the police, the safest course is to err on the side of permitting free expression and only restricting it where strong reasons for doing so for one of the stated aims exist, and where the restriction is proportionate and non-discriminatory. Even where the ideas concerned are extreme, suppressing them requires strong justification. Great care should also be taken in issuing and executing search warrants of newspaper publishers' premises; journalists have the right to protect their sources.

Download the abstract

  • Diminuer la taille du texte
  • Augmenter la taille du texte
  • Imprimer la page