Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The ECHR and the Essence of Fundamental Rights: Searching for Sugar in Hot Milk?

  • Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck and Cecilia Rizcallah

Abstract

The concept of the “essence”—as well as the related concepts of “substance” or “core”—of fundamental rights is absent from the text of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but regularly appears in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) since the Belgian Linguistic case of 1968. Yet, fifty years after its explicit emergence in the Convention’s legal order, it must be observed that a clear understanding of this concept and of its practical utility is still lacking. Indeed, the idea of the essence of fundamental rights has never been clearly defined in its case law, which remains essentially pragmatic and unprincipled in this field. This Article will therefore attempt to remedy this shortcoming by sketching out the different functions assigned to the concepts of the essence, substance, and core of rights in the ECtHR’s case law. It is postulated that the concepts of the essence, substance, and core of fundamental rights are invoked for three different types of purposes. First, the concepts of the essence, substance, and core are—apparently at least—used by the ECtHR to fix the “limit on the limits,” for example, the inalienable part of fundamental rights safeguarded from any possible restriction. Second, this concept has been a vehicle for expanding the Convention’s sphere of protection for the purposes of guaranteeing its effectiveness. Third, the concepts of the essence, substance, and core of fundamental rights also constitute a “reviewing tool” used by the Court to determine the intensity of the States’ obligations on the basis of a prioritization among a series of values at stake. Although these three different functions can be identified on paper, the practical usefulness, workability, and desirability of the concepts of the essence, substance, and core will be questioned.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The ECHR and the Essence of Fundamental Rights: Searching for Sugar in Hot Milk?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The ECHR and the Essence of Fundamental Rights: Searching for Sugar in Hot Milk?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The ECHR and the Essence of Fundamental Rights: Searching for Sugar in Hot Milk?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Footnotes

Hide All
*

Vice-Rector and Professor at the Law Faculty of the Université Saint-Louis-Bruxelles, Assessor at the Council of State, Belgium.

**

Research Fellow at the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S. – FNRS) affiliated both to the Université Saint-Louis-Bruxelles and the Université libre de Bruxelles.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

1 Coluche, Pensées et anecdotes [Thoughts and Anecdotes] (1995).

2 Case “Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium” v. Belgium, App. Nos. 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, para. 5 (July 23, 1968) [hereinafter The Belgian Linguistic Case] (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57525.

3 See, e.g., Julian Rivers, Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, 65 Cambridge L. J. 174 (2006); Maja Brkan, In Search of the Concept of Essence of EU Fundamental Rights Through the Prism of Data Privacy 10 (Maastricht Faculty of Law, Working Paper No. 01, 2017); Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, La proportionnalité dans le droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme 351 (2001).

4 Marc-André Eissen, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, Revue de droit public 1585 (1986).

5 See O. Rouzière-Beaulieu, La protection de la substance du droit par la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme 309 (Sept. 2017) (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Université de Montpellier).

6 Regner v. The Czech Republic, App. No. 35289/11 (Sept. 19, 2017) (Sajó, J., dissenting), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-177299.

7 Id. (Serghides, J., dissenting).

8 Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, App. No. 51357/07 (Mar. 15, 2018) (Wojtyczek, J., dissenting), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181789.

9 ECJ, Case 4/73, Nold KG v. Comm’n, ECLI:EU:C:1974:51, Judgment of 14 May, 1974, para. 12.

10 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Dec. 18, 2000, 2000 O.J. (C 364) art. 52, § 3 [hereinafter CFREU].

11 Id. art. 53.

12 Naït-Liman, App. No. 51357/07.

13 Gerhard van der Schyff, Cutting to the Core of Conflicting Rights: the Question of Inalienable Cores in Comparative Perspective, in Conflicts Between Human Rights 132 (Eva Brems ed., 2008).

14 Id. at 131.

15 See infra Part B.

16 See infra Part C.

17 See infra Part D.

18 Janneke Gerards, EVRM Algemene Beginselen 167 (2011).

19 See infra Part B(I).

20 See infra Part B(II).

21 Naït-Liman, App. No. 51357/07.

22 van der Schyff, supra note 13, at 132.

23 Bundesverfassung [BV] [Constitution] Apr. 18, 1999, SR 101, art. 36 (Switz.).

24 Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Apr. 25, 1974, art. 18(3).

25 C.E., B.O.E. n. 311, Dec. 29, 1978, art. 53.1 (Spain).

26 Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası [Constitution] Nov. 7, 1982, art. 13 (Turk.).

27 CFREU, supra note 10, art. 52, § 1. On this provision and the notion of essential content in the EU Charter of fundamental rights, see Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck & Cecilia Rizcallah, Article 52, in La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne Commentaire article par article 1083 (2017).

28 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 377.

29 This judge moreover considers that Article 1 of the Convention itself provides for a foundation to the prohibition to infringe the substance of fundamental rights. According to him, it follows from the wording of Article 1 of the Convention, which entrusts the members States with an obligation to secure ‘to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention’, and particularly from the phrase ‘defined in’, that the determination of the ambit of the rights and freedoms is exclusively and exhaustively made in Section 1 (and, of course, the additional Articles in the Protocols). It is not the aim of an express exception to a right provided in the Convention to intervene with its core or essence; its aim is rather to limit or restrict the realisation of that right in certain cases, by following the proportionality test. Two legal Latin maxims are relevant in this respect: exceptio probat regulam, meaning ‘an exception proves the rule’; exceptio quæ firmat legem, exponit legem, meaning ‘an exception which confirms the law, expounds the law’. On the other hand, an absolute or blanket exception or restriction or ban goes right to the core of a right. So, it cannot be said that it confirms or expounds the right, but it merely annihilates it and renders it ineffective by removing the foundation on which it lies. Here the general Latin maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus, meaning ‘remove the foundation, the work falls’ may also be relevant. Were the proceedings criminal rather than civil or administrative, such a blanket and absolute restriction would probably violate the presumption of a person’s innocence.

Regner, App. No. 35289/11 (Serghides, J., partly dissenting) (internal citations omitted).

30 Id. at para. 50.

31 Notably provided by § 2 of the Convention’s provisions.

32 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 528. See also Navalnyy v. Russia, App. No. 29580/12 (Nov. 15, 2018) (Pejchal, Dedov, Ravarani, Eicke & Paczolay, JJ., partly dissenting), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187605.

33 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 378.

34 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 379.

35 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 379.

36 See Rusen Ergec, Les droits de l’Homme à l’épreuve des circonstances exceptionnelles Etude sur l’article 15 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme 34 (1987) (expressing the opinion that the intangibility of the substance of fundamental rights moreover constitutes a necessary assumption to justify the effet utile of the derogation scheme enshrined in Article 15 of the Convention in the whole system.).

37 See The Belgian Linguistic Case, App. Nos. 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, para. 5.

38 See Golder v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70, para. 38 (Feb. 21, 1975), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57496.

39 See Rees v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9532/81, para. 50 (Oct. 17, 1986), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57564.

40 See Serves v. France, App. No. 20225/92, para. 47 (Oct. 20, 1997), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58103.

41 See Mathieu-Mohin & Clerfayt v. Belgium, App. No. 9267/81, para. 52 (Mar. 2, 1987), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57536.

42 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 475.

43 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 475.

44 Naït-Liman, App. No. 51357/07, para. 112.

45 Ashingdane v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8225/78, para. 57 (May 28, 1985), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57425.

46 See Phinikaridou v. Cyprus, App. No. 23890/02, para. 65 (Dec. 20, 2007), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-84106.

47 See Sinan Isik v. Turkey, App. No. 21924/05, para. 42 (Feb. 2, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-97087.

48 See Rhino v. Switzerland, App. No. 48848/07, para. 66 (Oct. 11, 2011), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-106893; Matelly v. France, App. No. 10609/10, para. 57 (Oct. 2, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147063; Ognevenko v. Russia, App. No. 44873/09, para. 59 (Nov. 20, 2018), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187732.

49 See Regner, App. No. 35289/11, para. 148.

50 Baka v. Hungary, App. No. 20261/12, para. 120 (June 23, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-163113.

51 Matthews v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24833/94, para. 63 (Feb. 18, 1999), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58910.

52 See infra Part B(II)(1).

53 See infra Part B(II)(2).

54 Rhino, App. No. 48848/07, para. 66 (emphasis added).

55 Id.

56 Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany, App. No. 42527/98, para. 69 (July 12, 2001) (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59591.

57 Id. (Costa, J., concurring).

58 Rivers, supra note 3, at 184; van der Schyff, supra note 13, at 134; Brkan, supra note 3, at 22.

59 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 361.

60 van der Schyff, supra note 13, at 134.

61 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 362.

62 van der Schyff, supra note 13, at 134.

63 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 362.

64 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 362.

65 Matelly, App. No. 10609/10 at paras. 75–76.

66 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 363.

67 Regner, App. No. 35289/11 (Raimondi, Sicilianos, Spano, Ravarani & Paster Vilanova, JJ., partly dissenting).

68 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 433.

69 See e.g., Rivers, supra note 3, at 186; Rouzière-Beaulieu, supra note 5, at 309.

70 Regner, App. No. 35289/11, para. 59 (Serghides, J., partly dissenting); Brkan, supra note 3, at 13.

71 See Krüger Herbert, Der Wesensgehalt der Grundrechte, EuGRZ 323 (1985).

72 van der Schyff, supra note 13, at 133.

73 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 372.

74 Naït-Liman, App. No. 51357/07 (Wojtyczek, J., partly dissenting).

75 Id.

76 Airey v. Ireland, App. No. 6289/73, para. 24 (Oct. 9, 1979).

77 Johan Callewaert, La Convention des droits de l’homme entre effectivité et prévisibilité, in Les droits de l'homme au seuil du troisième millénaire: Mélanges en hommage à Pierre Lambert 93 (2000).

78 See infra Part C(I).

79 See infra Part C(II).

80 See infra Part C(III).

81 See infra Part C(IV).

82 See Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 428.

83 See Isabelle Van Hiel, The Right to Form and Join Trade Unions Protected by Article 11 ECHR, in The European Convention on Human Rights and the Employment Relation 287 (Filip Dorssemont, Klaus Lörcher & Isabelle Schömann, eds., 2013).

84 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 20(2), Dec. 10, 1948.

85 Young, James & Webster v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 7601/76, 7806/77, para. 52 (Aug. 13, 1981) (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57608.

86 See Sibson v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14327/88, para. 29 (April 20, 1993), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57843; Chassagnou v. France, App. Nos. 25088/94, 28331/95, 28443/95 (Apr. 29, 1999), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58288; Sørensen & Rasmussen v. Denmark, App. Nos. 52562/99, 52620/99, para. 56 (Jan. 11, 2006), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72015; Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 432.

87 Young, James & Webster, App. Nos. 7601/76, 7806/77 at para. 65.

88 See supra Part A.; Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 433.

89 See Yves Haeck, The Genesis of the Property Clause Under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, in PropriÉtÉ et droits de L’homme-Property and Human Rights 163 (Hugo Vandenberghe ed., 2006).

90 Sporrong & Lönnroth v. Sweden, App. Nos. 7151/75, 7152/75 (Sept. 23, 1982), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57580. For a recent overview of this case law, see also the dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto De Albuquerque in Albert v. Hungary, App. No. 5294/14 (Jan. 29, 2019), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189631.

91 Sporrong & Lönnroth v. Sweden, para. 60 (emphasis added).

92 Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 3, at 439.

93 Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14038/88, para. 86 (July 7, 1989), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57619. See also, Öcalan v. Turkey, App. No. 46221/99, paras. 199–213 (Mar. 12, 2003), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69022; F. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 17341/03 (June 22, 2004).

94 Soering, App. No. 14038/88 at para. 86.

95 Id. at para. 88.

96 Id. at para. 88.

97 F. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 17341/03 (decision on admissibility).

98 Id.

99 Drozd & Janousek v. France & Spain, App. No. 12747/87, para. 110 (June 26, 1992), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57774.

100 Soering, App. No. 14038/88 at para. 113.

101 See also, Ahorugeze v. Sweden, App. No. 37075/09, para. 115 (June 4, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-107183; Maumousseau & Washington v. France, App. No. 39388/05, para. 98 (Dec. 6, 2007), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-83823 (referring to the “essential guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention”).

102 Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8139/09, para. 260 (May 9, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-108629. See also Al Nashiri v. Romania, App. No. 33234/12, para. 717 (May 31, 2018) (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-183685.

103 See Nicolas Bernard, Le Droit au Logement des Migrants, 40 Administration Publique Trimestriel 20, 39 (2017); Europees Sociaal Handvest, Sociale Rechten en Grondrechten op de Werkvloer 149 (Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, Filip Dorssemont & Guido Van Limberghen, eds., 2016).

104 The International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. France, Complaint No. 14/2003, European Committee of Social Rights (Nov. 3, 2004) (emphasis added).

105 Council of Europe, European Social Charter (Revised), app., para. 1 (1996).

106 FIDH v. France, Complaint No. 14/2003, para. 32.

107 Médecins du Monde-International v. France, Complaint No. 67/2011, European Committee of Social Rights (Sept. 11, 2012).

108 Case C-34/09, Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), paras. 32–33 (Mar. 8, 2011) (emphasis added) https://curia.europa.eu.

109 Luc Leboeuf, La citoyenneté européenne appliquée aux situations purement internes: portée et enjeux des arreêts Zambrano et Mc Carthy, Jursiprudence Liège Mons Bruxelles 1128 (2011).

110 See European Court of Human Rights, Guide sur l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: Droit à un procès équitable, para. 351 (Dec. 31, 2018) https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_FRA.pdf; Dean Spielmann, L’étendue du contrôle du respect des droits fondamentaux à l’aune de l’expérience judiciaire comparée, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 897–952 (2017).

111 Pellegrini v. Italy, App. No. 30882/96, para. 40 (July 20, 2001), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59604.

112 Jean-Paul Costa, Observations sur l’arrêt Pellegrini c. Italie, Revue Trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 474 (2002).

113 Maumousseau, App. No. 39388/05 at paras. 96, 98.

114 See infra Part D(I).

115 See infra Part D(II).

116 See infra Part D(III).

117 See infra Part D(IV).

118 See infra Part D(V).

119 Stijn Smet, Resolving Conflicts Between Human Rights: The Judge’s Dilemma (2017) 160.

120 Id., 160.

121 Biriuk v. Lithuania, App. No. 23373/03 (Nov. 25, 2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89827.

122 Id. at para. 39.

123 Id. at para. 42.

124 See Stijn Smet, Conflicts between Human Rights and the ECtHR. Towards a Structured Balancing Test, in When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Rights 47 (Eva Brems & Stijn Smet, eds., 2017).

125 Jussila v. Finland, App. No. 73053/01, para. 43 (Nov. 23, 2006), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-78135.

126 Id.

127 The distinction between the “hard core” and the “periphery” of criminal law has also been relied upon by the ECtHR in its application of the ne bis in idem principle. See A & B v. Norway, App. Nos. 24130/11, 29758/11, para. 133 (Nov. 15, 2016).

128 Micallef v. Malta, App. No. 17056/06, para. 85 (Oct. 15, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95031. See also Frédéric Krenc, L’assujettissement du référé aux garanties du procés équitable, obs. sous Cour eur. dr. h., gde ch., arrêt Micallef c. Malte du 15 octobre 2009, in Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme, 295–315 (2011); Jean-François Van Drooghenbroeck & Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, Référé et procès équitable (note sous Cass., 14 janvier 2005), Revue Critique de Jurisprudence Belge, 507–55 (2006).

129 Micallef, App. No. 17056/06 at para. 86. See also A.K. v. Liechtenstein, App. No. 38191/12, para. 55 (July 9, 2015) (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155824.

130 Bosphorus v. Ireland, App. No. 45036/98 (June 30, 2005), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69564.

131 See, on that case law, Steve Peers, Bosphorus—European Court of Human Rights, 2 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 443 (2006); Cédric Ryngaert, The European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to the Responsibility of Member States in Connection with Acts of International Organizations, 60 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 997 (2011).

132 Bosphorus, App. No. 45036/98 at para. 155.

133 Michaud v. France, App. No. 12323/11 (Dec. 6, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-115377.

134 Bosphorus, App. No. 45036/98 at para. 155 (emphasis added).

135 A similar conclusion was already drawn earlier by J. Callewaert who observed that the judgment in M & Co App. No. 132558/87 (Jan. 9, 1990), which precedes Bosphorus, was largely inspired by the Solange judgement. See J. Callewaert, Les droits fondamentaux entre cours nationales et européennes, Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme 1190 (2001).

136 Olivier De Schutter, Les deux vies de Bosphorus: la redéfinition des rapports entre la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et les Parties à la Convention [The Two Lives of Bosphorus: Redefining the Relationships between the European Court of Human Rights and the Parties to the Convention], 2013 Journal européen des droits de l’homme [Eur. J. of Hum. Rts.] 584, 588 (2013).

137 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Oct. 1986, Re Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft, C.M.L.R. 339 (1987) (Ger.).

138 Tony Marguery, Je t’aime moi non plus, the Avotiņš v. Latvia Judgment: An Answer from the ECrtHR to the CJEU, 10 R. Eur. Admin. L. 113 (2017).

139 Avotiņš v. Latvia, App. No. 17502/07, para. 114 (May 23, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-163114.

140 Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast), 2012 O.J. (L 351) 1.

141 Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7525/76, para. 52 (Oct. 22, 1981), =http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57473.

142 Hatton v. United Kingdom, App. No. 36022/97, para. 10 (July 8, 2003) (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61188; K.A & A.D v. Belgium, App. No. 42758/98, para. 84 (Feb. 17, 2005) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68355

Criminal law cannot, in principle, intervene in the field of consenting sexual relations since it belongs the free will of individuals. There must therefore be 'particularly serious reasons’ for public interference in the field of sexuality to be justified for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.

143 Odièvre v. France, App. No. 42326/98, para. 1 (Feb. 13, 2003) (Wildhaber, Bratza, Bonello, Loucaides, Cabral Barreto, Tulkens & Pellonpää, JJ., dissenting) (emphasis added), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60935.

144 Id. (emphasis added).

145 R.M.T. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 31045/10, para. 87 (Apr. 8, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-142192. See also Tek Gida Is Sendikasi v. Turkey, App. No. 35009/05, para. 36 (Apr. 4, 2017), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-172858.

146 Id. (emphasis added).

147 On the difference between the formal and material conception of the principle of adversarial proceedings, see Frédéric Krenc & Marie-Aude Beernaert, La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme à la recherche d’une conception pragmatique du procès équitable, in Les droits de l’homme et l’efficacité de la justice 197–254 (2010).

148 Vermeulen v. Belgium, App. No. 19075/91 (Feb. 20, 1996), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57985.

149 Case C-17/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v. Aruba, 2000 E.C.R. I-665 (Feb. 4, 2000).

150 Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A v. The Netherlands, App. No. 13645/05 (Jan. 20, 2009). See also Antoine Bailleux & S. Van Drooghenbroeck, La Charte des droits fondamentaux—Invocabilité, interprétation, application et relations avec la CEDH, in Les innovations du traité de Lisbonne—Incidences pour le praticien, 249–323. (Nicolas de Sadeleer, Hugues Dumont, Pierre Jadoul & Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, eds., 2011).

151 See, e.g., R.M.T., App. No. 31045/10.

152 See Young, James & Webster, App. Nos. 7601/76, 7806/77 at para. 65.

153 See R.M.T., App. No. 31045/10 at para. 87.

154 See Rhino, App. No. 48848/07.

155 Regner, App. No. 35289/11 (Serghides, J., dissenting; Sajó, J., partly dissenting).

156 Naït-Liman, App. No. 51357/07 (Wojtyczek, J., partly dissenting).

157 Jean Dubey, Droits fondamentaux 219 (2017).

158 Tyrer v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5856/72, para. 31 (Apr. 25, 1978), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57587.

159 See Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, Retour sur l’interprétation “involutive” de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, in Le droit malgré tout. Hommage à François Ost 417–41 (2018).

* Vice-Rector and Professor at the Law Faculty of the Université Saint-Louis-Bruxelles, Assessor at the Council of State, Belgium.

** Research Fellow at the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S. – FNRS) affiliated both to the Université Saint-Louis-Bruxelles and the Université libre de Bruxelles.

Keywords

The ECHR and the Essence of Fundamental Rights: Searching for Sugar in Hot Milk?

  • Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck and Cecilia Rizcallah

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed