Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The European Court of Human Rights, Rule of Law and Socio-Economic Rights in Times of Crises

  • Article
  • Published:
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The European economic crisis has severely affected socio-economic rights of hundreds of thousands. An economic crisis can also undermine a state’s institutional and financial ability to fully maintain the rule of law and protect human rights of its population. This article therefore examines the theoretical relationship between the rule of law and an economic crisis from the perspective of the socio-economic rights obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. It attempts to adequately address the relationship between economic crisis, socio-economic human rights and rule of law by critically examining the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It asks one main question: Do states have obligations to maintain standards of the rule of law and socio-economic rights during an economic crisis? Finally, this article argues that states are obliged to maintain during the economic crises a reasonable minimum core of human rights and not to lower the standards of rule of law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Annual activity report 2015, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/annual-activity-report-2015. Accessed 10 August 2016. See also M. Salomon, ‘Austerity, Human Rights and Europe’s Accountability Gap’, Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights-blog/margot-salomon/austerity-human-rights-and-europe%E2%80%99s-accountability-gap. Accessed 10 January 2016.

  2. Saiz (2009), p. 277; Johnstone and Ámundadóttir (2011), p. 455.

  3. Nolan (2015), pp. 358–369.

  4. De Burca (2005).

  5. Leijten (2014).

  6. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Rights: Challenges and Achievements in 2012, 11–38. http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/annual-report-2012_en.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016. See also International Labour Organization, World Social Protection Report 2014/15: Building Economic Recovery, Inclusive Development and Social Justice, 2 (2014). <http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_245201.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016.

  7. European Committee of Social Rights, General Introduction to European Social Charter (revised) Conclusions 2009, 17 (2009).

  8. Council of Europe, Study No. 711/2013 Rule of Law Checklist, CDL-AD (2016) 007, 18 March 2016, para. 43.

  9. European Committee of Social Rights, n. 8.

  10. Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

  11. Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, para. 34, Series A No. 18.

  12. Bingham (2010), p. 7.

  13. Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, para. 56, Series A No. 28.

  14. Karácsony and Others v. Hungary, Nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13), 17 May 2016, para. 156. See similarly Chengelyan and Others v. Bulgaria, No. 47405/07, 21 April 2016.

  15. See, for example, Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights (1950). http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005. Accessed 1 March 2016; EU, Justice Scoreboard (on-going annual reports); Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, ‘A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law’, COM(2014)158final/2. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/com_2014_158_en.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  16. CDL-AD(2016)007, para. 31.

  17. Ibid., para. 32.

  18. Zakaria (1997), p. 22.

  19. Bingham, n. 12, pp. 8–17.

  20. Ibid.

  21. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, preamble; American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, OAS Res XXX, International Conference of American States, 9th Conf., OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L./V/1.4 Rev. (April 1948) (beginning with: ‘The American peoples have acknowledged the dignity of the individual […]’; followed by preamble, beginning: ‘All men are born free and equal, in dignity and in rights […]’); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 5, June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3/Rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (‘Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being […]’).

  22. Preamble, para. 2.

  23. Locke J, Second Treatise, para. 95.

  24. Quoted in Moeckli (2007), p. 60.

  25. Kant [1785] (1993), p. 30.

  26. Moeckli, n. 24, p. 57.

  27. Rawls (1999), p. 266.

  28. Finnis (1980), pp. 81–90.

  29. Leverick 2003, p. 78.

  30. Finnis, n. 28, pp. 86–90.

  31. Ibid., p. 93. He notes that ‘none is more fundamental than any others, for each can reasonably be focused upon, and each, when focused upon, claims a priority of value’.

  32. Ibid., pp. 100–127.

  33. See generally Dworkin (1977, 1988).

  34. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 18 December 2000 (2000/C 364/01).

  35. Loizidou v. Turkey, 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) 75 (1995).

  36. See Questions & Answers, ECHR. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  37. Airey v. Ireland, 32 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) 26 (1979).

  38. Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A), para. 31(1978).

  39. See Kotlarik (2012).

  40. Airey v. Ireland, 32 Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 26.

  41. F. Tulkens, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and the Economic Crisis: The Issue of Poverty 5’, Eur. Univ. Inst., Working Paper No. 8, 2013. http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/28099. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  42. Leijten (2014), pp. 109–136.

  43. ECtHR, Centro Europe 7 and di Stefano v. Italy, 38433/09, 7 June 2012, §§134, 156; Bărbulescu v. Romania, 61496/08, 12 January 2016, para. 52.

  44. Guerra v. Italy, 1998-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 223 (Jambrek, J., concurring).

  45. Ibid.

  46. Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR 18 June 2013, No. 48609/06.

  47. Ibid.

  48. Ibid., p. 108.

  49. Ibid., p. 135.

  50. Ibid., p. 136.

  51. Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, 2012-II Eur. Ct. H.R. 154.

  52. Ahmed v. Malta, 55352/12, 23 July 2013, para. 99.

  53. M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR (GC) 21 January 2011, Appl. No. 30696/09, p. 254.

  54. Ibid., para. 253.

  55. Khocklich v. Moldova, ECtHR 29 April 2003, No. 41707/98, para. 181.

  56. Tarakhel v. Switzerland, para. 122.

  57. Ibid., para. 145.

  58. Rahimi v. Greece, No. 8687/08, para. 87.

  59. M.D. and Others v. Malta, 64791/10, 17 July 2012, para. 53. See also Bellet v. France, 23805/94, 4 December 1995, para. 36.

  60. Nosov and Others v. Russia, ECtHR 20 February 2014, Nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, para. 45.

  61. Hornsby v. Greece, ECtHR 19 March 1997, No. 18357/91, para. 41.

  62. Sylvester v. Austria, Nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, 24 April 2003, para. 63. See similarly P.P. v. Poland, 8677/03, 8 January 2008, para. 88.

  63. Sentges v. the Netherlands, No. 27677/02, 8 July 2003 (dec.).

  64. See older cases such as Marzari v. Italy, ECtHR 4 May 1999 (dec.), No. 36448/97; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova, ECtHR 4 January 2005 (dec.), No. 14462/03; Mółka v. Poland, ECtHR 11 April 2006 (dec.), No. 56550/00; Farcaş v. Romania, ECtHR 14 September 2010 (dec.), No. 32596/04.

  65. Da Conceição Mateus v. Portugal, Appl. Nos. 62235/12 and 57725/12, para. 26 (2013).

  66. Ibid., para. 28.

  67. Ibid., para. 29.

  68. Ibid.

  69. See also Blanco Callejas v. Spain, ECtHR 18 June 2006 (dec.), No. 64100/00; Buchheit and Meinberg v. Germany, ECtHR 2 February 2006 (dec.), Nos. 51466/99 and 70130/01; Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR 25 October 2011, Nos. 2033/04 et al.; Panfile v. Romania, ECtHR 20 March 2012, No. 13902/11; Khoniakina v. Georgia, ECtHR 19 June 2012, No. 17767/08, para. 76; Koufaki and Adedi v. Greece, ECtHR 7 May 2013 (dec.), Nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12.

  70. Koufaki and Adedi v. Greece, ECtHR 7 May 2013 (dec.), Nos. 57665/12 and 57657/12, para. 44 (2013).

  71. Ibid., para. 48.

  72. See more specifically, Leijten (2013), p. 177.

  73. N.K.M. v. Hungary, Appl. No. 66529/11, para. 71.

  74. Ibid., para. 72.

  75. Ibid., para. 75. See also R.Sz. v. Hungary, Appl. No. 41838/11, 15 May 2013, para. 60.

  76. The European Social Rights Committee has employed the combination of the minimum core approach and reasonableness test when determining state compliance with economic and social rights obligations. In IKA-ETAM v. Greece, the Committee held, ‘Even when reasons pertaining to the economic situation of a state party make it impossible for a state to maintain their social security system at the level that it had previously attained, it is necessary […] for that state party to maintain the social security system on a satisfactory level that takes into account the legitimate expectations of beneficiaries of the system and the right of all persons to effective enjoyment of the right to social security.’ IKA-ETAM v. Greece, Complaint No. 76/2012, para. 69 (2012).

  77. Béláné Nagy v. Hungary, No. 53080/13, 10 February 2015. See also Mihăieş and Senteş v. Romania, 6 December 2011 (dec.), Nos. 44232/11 and 44605/11.

  78. Ibid.

  79. Ibid., para. 53.

  80. Ibid., para. 1. of the Dissenting opinion.

  81. See, for more details, Leijten, ‘Does Property Protection Entail a Right to Obtain Social Benefits under the ECHR?’, VerfBlog. http://verfassungsblog.de/does-property-protection-entail-a-right-to-obtain-social-benefits-under-the-echr/. Accessed 1 March 2016. She argues that ‘[…] failing to lay down transparent and consistent limits to the interpretation of prima facie rights would create the possibility to discern far-reaching positive, socio-economic guarantees […]’.

  82. Kenny (2010), p. 486. See also cases: Gaygusuz v. Austria (1996) 23 EHRR 230; Koua Poirrez v. France (2005) 40 EHRR 34 and Stec and Others v. United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 47.

  83. Thornton (2011), p. 7.

  84. Palmer (2007), p. 50.

  85. Nolan (2011), p. 220.

  86. Brems (2007), pp. 135–167.

  87. Gerards (2012), pp. 173–202; see also Leijten et al. (2014), pp. 619–653.

  88. General Comment No. 3, para. 10.

  89. Lehmann (2006), pp. 163–197.

  90. Chapman (1996).

  91. Gowder (2014), p. 1021 and Gowder (2013), p. 565.

  92. Grootboom (1) SA 1 (CC), para. 41. See also Mazibuko and Others v. City of Johannesburg and Others 2009 (1) SA 1 (CC) paras. 93–97 (S. Afr.). The Court stated, ‘what is clear from the conduct of the City is that it has progressively sought to increase access to water for larger households who are prejudiced by the 6 kl limit. It has continued to review its policy regularly and undertaken sophisticated research to seek to ensure that it meets the needs of the poor within the city. It cannot therefore be said that the policy adopted by the City was inflexible, and the applicants’ argument on this score too must fail.’ Ibid., para. 97. See also Nokotyana and Others v. Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others 2009 (1) SA 1 (CC) at 23 (S. Afr.); Mureinik (1992), pp. 464, 473.

  93. Forman et al. (2016), pp. 531–548.

  94. Palmer (2009), p. 397.

References

  • Bingham T (2010) The rule of law. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems E (2007) Indirect protection of social rights by the European Court of Human Rights. In: Barak-Erez D, Gross AM (eds) Exploring social rights: between theory and practice. Hart, Oxford, pp 135–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman AR (1996) A ‘violations approach’ for monitoring the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Hum Rights Q 18(23):32

    Google Scholar 

  • De Burca G (2005) The future of social rights protection in Europe. In: De Burca G, de Witte B (eds) Social rights in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Duckworth

  • Dworkin R (1988) Law’s empire. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  • Finnis JM (1980) Natural law and natural rights. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman L, Caraoshi L, Chapman A, Lamprea E (2016) Conceptualising minimum core obligations under the right to health: how should we define and implement the ‘morality of the depth’. Int J Hum Rights 20(4):531–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerards JH (2012) The prism of fundamental rights. Eur Const Law Rev 8(2):173–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowder P (2013) The rule of law and equality. Law Philos 32:565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowder P (2014) Equal law in an unequal world. Iowa Law Rev 99:1021

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RL, Ámundadóttir A (2011) Defending economic, social and cultural rights in Iceland’s financial crisis. Yearb Polar Law 3:455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant I [1785] (1993) Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (trans: Ellington JW), 3rd edn. Hackett, Cambridge

  • Kenny J (2010) European Convention on Human Rights and social welfare law. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 5:486

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotlarik E (2012) European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), European Court of Justice (ECJ) and their interaction with selected national constitutional courts from the separation of powers perspective. LLM thesis, Central European University (unpublished)

  • Lehmann K (2006) In defense of the constitutional court: litigating socio-economic rights and the myth of the mini-mum core. Am Univ Int Law Rev 22:163–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijten I (2013) Social security as a human rights issue in Europe—Ramaer and Van Willigen and the development of property protection and non-discrimination under the ECHR. Zeitschrift für ausländisches und öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 73:177

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijten AEM (2014a) Defining the scope of economic and social guarantees in the case law of the ECtHR. In: Brems E, Gerards JH (eds) Shaping rights in the ECHR. Cambridge University Press, The role of the European Court of Human Rights in determining the scope of human rights, pp 109–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijten I (2014b) Defining the scope of economic and social guarantees in the case law of the ECtHR. In: Brems E, Gerards JH (eds) Shaping rights in the ECHR. The role of the European Court of Human Rights in determining the scope of human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijten I, Gerards H, Senden HCK (2014) The structure of fundamental rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Int J Const Law 7:619–653

    Google Scholar 

  • Leverick F (2003) A critical analysis of the law of self-defence in Scotland and England. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen (unpublished)

  • Moeckli D (2007) Human rights and non-discrimination in the ‘war on terror’. OUP

  • Mureinik E (1992) Beyond a charter of luxuries: economic rights in the constitution. S Afr J Hum Rts 8(464):473

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan A (2011) Children’s socio-economic rights, democracy and the courts. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan A (2015) Not fit for purpose? Human rights in times of financial and economic crisis. Eur Hum Rights Law Rev 4:358–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer E (2007) Judicial review, socio-economic rights and the Human Rights Act. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer E (2009) Protection socio-economic rights through the european convention on human rights: trends and developments in the European Court of Human Rights. Erasmus Law Review 2:397

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, USA

  • Saiz I (2009) Rights in recession? Challenges for economic and social rights enforcement in times of crisis. J Hum Rights Pract 1:277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton L (2011) The European Convention on Human Rights: a socio-economic rights charter? In: Egan S, Thornton L, Walsh J (eds) Ireland and the European Convention on Human Rights: 60 years and beyond. Bloomsbury, Dublin, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria F (1997) The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs 76(6):22

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor of Human Rights Law, Graduate School of Government and European Studies, Kranj, Slovenia

    Jernej Letnar Černič

Authors
  1. Jernej Letnar Černič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jernej Letnar Černič.

Additional information

All usual disclaimers apply.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Letnar Černič, J. The European Court of Human Rights, Rule of Law and Socio-Economic Rights in Times of Crises. Hague J Rule Law 8, 227–247 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-016-0035-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-016-0035-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation