View source for European Convention on Human Rights

{{Short description|International treaty in Europe}}
{{for|the court which enforces the convention|European Court of Human Rights}}
{{distinguish|Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2020}}
{{infobox treaty
| name = European Convention on Human Rights
| long_name = The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
| image = File:Map of the Council of Europe with former members (orthographic projection).svg
| image_width = 220px
| caption = Parties (dark green) and former parties (light green) to the convention.
| date_signed = 4 November 1950
| location_signed = Rome
| date_effective = 3 September 1953
| parties =[[Member states of the Council of Europe|46 Council of Europe member states]]
| depositor = [[Secretary General of the Council of Europe|Council of Europe Secretary General]]
| languages = English and [[French language|French]]
| wikisource = European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
}}
{{Rights|By claimant}}
The '''Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms''' (commonly known as the '''European Convention on Human Rights''' or '''ECHR''') is a [[supranational law|supranational]] international treaty designed to protect [[human rights]] and [[political freedoms]] throughout [[Europe]]. It was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 by the member states of the newly formed [[Council of Europe]]<ref name="Council of Europe">The Council of Europe should not be confused with the [[Council of the European Union]] or the [[European Council]].</ref> and entered into force on 3 September 1953. All [[Member states of the Council of Europe|Council of Europe member states]] are parties to the Convention, and any new member is required to ratify it at the earliest opportunity.<ref>[https://pace.coe.int/en/files/16442/html "Resolution 1031 (1994) on the honouring of commitments entered into by member states when joining the Council of Europe"]. Council of Europe. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100110151955/http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA94/ERES1031.HTM |date=10 January 2010 }}.</ref>

The ECHR was directly inspired by the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], proclaimed by the [[United Nations General Assembly]] on 10 December 1948. Its main difference lies in the existence of an [[international court]], the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECtHR), whose [[Judgment (law)|judgments]] are legally binding on states parties. This ensures that the rights set out in the Convention are not just principles but are concretely enforceable through individual complaint or inter-state complaint procedures.

To guarantee this judicial enforcement, the Convention established both the [[Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]] and the ECtHR, which has sat in [[Strasbourg]] since its creation in 1959. Any person who believes their rights under the Convention have been violated by a state party can bring a case before the Court, provided their state allows it under Article 56 of the Convention. Judgments finding violations are binding on the states concerned, which are obliged to comply, particularly by paying appropriate compensation to applicants for any damage suffered. The Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of judgments.

The ECtHR has defined the Convention as a [[Living instrument doctrine|living instrument]],<ref>[https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57587 ''Tyrer v. the United Kingdom''], 25 April 1978, paragraph 31</ref> meaning it must be interpreted in light of present-day conditions. This evolving case law can restrict the [[margin of appreciation]] left to states or create new rights derived from existing provisions.

Since its adoption, the Convention has been amended by seventeen additional [[protocol (treaty)|protocols]], which have added new rights or extended existing ones.<ref>{{cite web |title=Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms |publisher=Council of Europe |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/home?p_p_id=com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=pop_up&p_p_mode=view&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_groupId=2657384&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_mvcPath=%2Fpreview_article_content.jsp&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_articleId=11781441&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_version=1.7 |access-date=6 July 2025}}</ref> These include the right to property, the right to education, the right to free elections, the prohibition of imprisonment for debt, the right to freedom of movement, the ban on expelling nationals, the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens, the abolition of the [[death penalty]], procedural safeguards for the expulsion of lawfully residing foreigners, the right to a [[Appeal|double degree of jurisdiction]] in criminal matters, the right to compensation for wrongful conviction, the {{lang|la|[[Non bis in idem|ne bis in idem]]}} principle (not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence), equality between spouses, and a general prohibition of discrimination.

The most recent version entered into force on 1 August 2021 through [[#Protocol 15|Protocol No. 15]], which added the [[principle of subsidiarity]] to the preamble. This principle reaffirms that states parties have the primary responsibility to secure and remedy human rights violations at national level.

The European Convention on Human Rights is widely considered the most effective international treaty for the protection of human rights and has had a significant influence on the domestic law of all Council of Europe member states.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Andreadakis |first1=S. |title=The European Convention on Human Rights, the EU and the UK: Confronting a Heresy: A Reply to Andrew Williams |journal=European Journal of International Law |date=2013 |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=1187–1193 |doi=10.1093/ejil/cht063 |quote=Five decades later, it is undisputed that the ECHR has been successful in carrying out its mission, judging from its influence on the laws and social realities of the contracting parties, the extensive jurisprudence in the field of the protection of human rights, as well as the remarkable compliance with the ECtHR's judgments.|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Why Incorporate the ECHR? The Domestic Incentives of Human Rights Commitment |url=https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/68/2/sqae039/7668665?login=false |date=11 May 2024 |access-date=6 July 2025 |quote=the ECHR is the world's most effective international human rights treaty |doi=10.1093/isq/sqae039 |doi-access=free |first1=Johan  |last1=Karlsson |journal=International Studies Quarterly |volume=68 |issue=2 | article-number=sqae039 }}</ref>

==Context==
{{see also|European Court of Human Rights}}
[[File:Stamp 2010 HR Convention-60 (1).jpg|thumb|Ukrainian stamp, commemorating 60 years of the European Convention on Human Rights]]
The European Convention on Human Rights has played an important role in the development and awareness of [[human rights]] in Europe. The development of a regional system of human rights protections operating across Europe can be seen as a direct response to twin concerns. First, in the aftermath of the [[Second World War]], the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], can be seen as part of a wider response from the [[Allies of World War II|Allied powers]] in delivering a human rights agenda to prevent the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War from happening again.<ref name=ovey>{{cite book|last1=Ovey|first1=Clare|title=The European Convention on Human Rights|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-928810-6|pages=1–3|first2=Robin C. A. |last2=White|year=2006}}</ref>

Second, the convention was a response to the growth of [[Stalinism]] in [[Central Europe|Central]] and [[Eastern Europe]] and was designed to protect the member states of the [[Council of Europe]] from [[communist]] subversion.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Human Rights' Context |url=https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r26758.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230328112045/https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r26758.pdf |archive-date=2023-03-28 |access-date=2025-01-16 |publisher=[[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]]}}</ref> This, in part, explains the constant references to values and principles that are "[[necessary in a democratic society]]" throughout the convention, despite the fact that such principles are not in any way defined within the convention itself.<ref name=ovey /> Consequently, the convention was principally conceived, at the time of its creation, as an "anti-totalitarian" measure to help stabilise social democracies in Western Europe, rather than as a specific reaction to the legacy of Nazism and the Holocaust. This approach was a continuation of Atlanticist beliefs from World War II and the early Cold War which called for the defence of democracy against all forms of authoritarianism.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Iriye |editor1-first=Akira |editor2-first=Petra |editor2-last=Goedde |editor3-first=William I. |editor3-last=Hitchcock |title=The human rights revolution: an international history |volume=3 |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2012 |pages=63–64}}</ref>

== History ==
From 7 to 10 May 1948, politicians including [[Winston Churchill]], [[François Mitterrand]], and [[Konrad Adenauer]], as well as civil society representatives, academics, business leaders, trade unionists, and religious leaders convened the [[Congress of Europe]] in [[The Hague]]. At the end of the Congress, a declaration and following pledge to create the convention was issued. The second and third articles of the pledge state: "We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."<ref>{{Cite book|title=Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights|last=Mowbray|first=Alastair|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-19-920674-2|location=Oxford, UK|pages=[https://archive.org/details/casesmaterialson0002mowb/page/1 1–2]|url=https://archive.org/details/casesmaterialson0002mowb/page/1}}</ref>

[[File:Courtroom European Court of Human Rights 01.JPG|thumb|Courtroom of the [[European Court of Human Rights|Strasbourg Court]]]]
The convention was drafted as one the first and most important tasks of the newly-formed [[Council of Europe]]. Over 100 parliamentarians from the then-twelve member states of the Council gathered in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first-ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly to draft the "charter of human rights" announced at the Hague, and to establish a court to enforce it. British MP and lawyer Sir [[David Maxwell-Fyfe]], the chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the convention, based on an earlier draft produced by the [[European Movement]]. As a prosecutor at the [[Nuremberg Trials]], he had seen first-hand the power of international justice.

French former minister and French Resistance fighter [[Pierre-Henri Teitgen]] submitted a report<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/Conferences/2009Anniversaire49/DocRef/Teitgen6.pdf|title=Report by Pierre-Henri Teitgen of France, submitted to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe|publisher=Council of Europe|access-date=13 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090808104544/http://assembly.coe.int/Conferences/2009Anniversaire49/DocRef/Teitgen6.pdf|archive-date=8 August 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> to the Assembly proposing a list of rights to be protected, selecting a number from the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] that had recently been agreed to in New York, and defining how the enforcing judicial mechanism might operate. After extensive debates,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/Conferences/2009Anniversaire49/DocRef/Teitgen7E.pdf|title=Verbatim text of the speech given by Pierre-Henri Teitgen when he presented his report to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe|publisher=Council of Europe|access-date=13 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090808104534/http://assembly.coe.int/Conferences/2009Anniversaire49/DocRef/Teitgen7E.pdf|archive-date=8 August 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> the Assembly sent its final proposal<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/Conferences/2009Anniversaire49/DocRef/Rec38_9.pdf|title=Recommendation 38 of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on 'Human rights and fundamental freedoms' |publisher=Council of Europe|access-date=13 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090808104509/http://assembly.coe.int/Conferences/2009Anniversaire49/DocRef/Rec38_9.pdf|archive-date=8 August 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> to the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, which convened a group of experts to draft the convention itself.

The convention was designed to incorporate a traditional [[civil liberties]] approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe, as said by [[Guido Raimondi]], President of the [[European Court of Human Rights]]:

{{Blockquote|The European system of protection of human rights with its Court would be inconceivable untied from democracy. In fact, we have a bond that is not only regional or geographic: a State cannot be party to the European Convention on Human Rights if it is not a member of the Council of Europe; it cannot be a member State of the Council of Europe if it does not respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights. So a non-democratic State could not participate in the ECHR system: the protection of democracy goes hand in hand with the protection of rights.|Guido Raimondi<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.academia.edu/22369691 <!--Useless archive removed. Didn't bypass a login wall. To be useful the archive must enable [[WP:V|verifying]] the claim i.e. that it contains this quotation-->|via=[[academia.edu]] |issn=2421-0528 |language=it |trans-title=Parliamentary immunity and human rights |title=Immunità parlamentari e diritti umani |work=Diritto Pubblico Europeo Rassegna online |trans-work=European Public Law Online Review |first=Guido |last=Raimondi |date=January 2016}}</ref>}}

The convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome. It was ratified and entered into force on 3 September 1953. It is overseen and enforced by the [[European Court of Human Rights]] in Strasbourg, and the [[Council of Europe]]. Until procedural reforms in the late 1990s, the convention was also overseen by a [[European Commission on Human Rights]].

Proposals for reform of the convention have been put forward, for example by former UK Prime Minister [[Rishi Sunak]],<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-call-european-court-of-human-rights-echr-reform-ahead-council-of-europe-summit/ |title=Rishi Sunak demands ECHR reform ahead of Council of Europe summit |website=[[Politico Europe]] |first=Andrew |last=McDonald |location=London |archive-date=30 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240930111735/https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-call-european-court-of-human-rights-echr-reform-ahead-council-of-europe-summit/ |url-status=live |date=16 May 2023 |access-date=27 October 2023}}</ref> and other UK politicians.<ref>{{cite news |first=Andrew |last=McDonald |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-manifesto-you-dont-have-to/ |title=We read Nigel Farage's manifesto so you don't have to |date=17 June 2024 |location=London |at=1) Leave the ECHR |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240930112506/https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-manifesto-you-dont-have-to/ |archive-date=30 September 2024 |website=Politico Europe}}</ref> [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] politicians have proposed reform or withdrawal from the convention during the [[2024 Conservative Party leadership election]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/28/robert-jenrick-do-not-mess-around-conservative-leadership/ |access-date=30 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240930114700/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/28/robert-jenrick-do-not-mess-around-conservative-leadership/ |url-status=live |title=Robert Jenrick: Kemi's ECHR plan is just fantasy |archive-date=30 September 2024 |date=28 September 2024 |first=Ben |last=Riley-Smith |work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] |url-access=registration |quote=Mr Jenrick is the only one of the four candidates explicitly proposing to pull the UK out of the ECHR. Others have not ruled it out but called for a wider overhaul of migration policy before that is considered.}}</ref> After the September 2025 [[2025 British cabinet reshuffle|British cabinet reshuffle]] Labour Party officials said other member countries wanted Britain to play a leading role in reforming the convention, while opposition party [[Reform UK]] pledged to leave the ECHR to have free hand in deporting migrants.<ref>{{Cite web |title=New home secretary threatens to suspend visas if countries do not agree to take back migrants |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shabana-mahmood-home-secretary-migrants-visas-returns-labour-b2822244.html |date=8 September 2025 |website=The Independent}}</ref> It has been argued by many academics and most recently the then-Justice Secretary, [[Shabana Mahmood]], that rather than the Convention being the issue, it is rather the way in which the UK interprets the Convention domestically which tends to be more strict than most other State Parties.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/04/britain-extreme-interpretation-echr-justice-secretary |title=Britain has extreme interpretation of ECHR, says Justice Secretary |work=The Telegraph |first=Charles |last=Hymas |date=4 September 2025 |access-date=4 April 2026}}</ref>

==Membership==
{{main|Member states of the Council of Europe}}
As of 2025, all 46 member states of the Council of Europe are High Contracting Parties to the Convention. Article 59 of the Convention states that it is open for signature by member states of the Council of Europe, and ratification of the Convention is a prerequisite for any state wishing to join the Council.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Council of Europe |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/members-states |title=Member States of the Council of Europe |access-date=15 April 2026}}</ref> Therefore, the membership of the two bodies is identical.

The Convention and its protocols are not open to states outside the Council of Europe. However, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may invite a non-member state to accede, though this power has not been used.<ref>European Convention on Human Rights, Article 59, Section 1.</ref>

===Former members===
Russia was a party to the Convention from 1998 until 2022. Although it joined the Council of Europe in 1996, it ratified the Convention on 5 May 1998.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Council of Europe Treaty Office |title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005 |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=005 |access-date=15 April 2026}}</ref> Following [[Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)|Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine]], the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe suspended Russia's rights of representation on 25 February 2022.<ref>{{cite press release |publisher=Council of Europe |title=Council of Europe suspends Russia's rights of representation |date=25 February 2022 |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/news-event/news/-/asset_publisher/m9nDZlgeFMpW/content/id/118110462 |access-date=15 April 2026}}</ref>

On 16 March 2022, Russia was formally excluded from the Council of Europe.<ref>{{Cite press release|publisher=Council of Europe|title=The Russian Federation is excluded from the Council of Europe|date=16 March 2022|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/transnational-criminal-justice-pcoc/-/the-russian-federation-is-excluded-from-the-council-of-europe|access-date=15 April 2026}}</ref> As a legal consequence of its expulsion, Russia ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention on 16 September 2022, after a six-month transitional period.<ref>{{Cite press release|publisher=European Court of Human Rights|title=Resolution of the Plenary Court on the consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe|date=22 March 2022 |url=https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Resolution_ECHR_cessation_membership_Russia_CoE_ENG}}</ref> The European Court of Human Rights remains competent to handle applications against Russia concerning violations that occurred before this date.

===Accession by the European Union===
A unique and ongoing membership consideration is the accession of the [[European Union]] (EU) itself to the Convention. The EU is an international organisation, not a state, and its member states are already parties to the Convention, as membership of the CoE is a prerequisite of membership of the EU.

The ambition for the Union to [[European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights|join the Convention]] is a pursuit rooted in the legal friction of the late 1970s. Because the founding treaties focused primarily on economic integration, the [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ) found it necessary to bridge the legislative gap by recognizing fundamental rights as "general principles of law" through its own jurisprudence. This evolution was largely a response to pressure from national constitutional courts most significantly the [[German Federal Constitutional Court]] in its 1974 {{lang|de|[[Solange I]]}} ruling, which signaled a refusal to accept the primacy of European law if it bypassed the human rights protections guaranteed by domestic constitutions. Consequently, to prevent a fragmented legal landscape and to solidify the Union's commitment to democratic standards, the European Commission issued its first formal memorandum proposing accession to the ECHR on 2 May 1979.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-04-03 |title=Adhésion de l'Union européenne à la convention européenne des droits de l'Homme |trans-title=Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights |url=https://www.senat.fr/rap/r19-562/r19-562.html |access-date=2026-02-14 |publisher=French Senate |language=fr-FR}}</ref>

The [[Treaty of Lisbon]], which entered into force in 2009, made it a legal obligation for the EU to accede to the ECHR.<ref>Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Article 6(2).</ref> Accession would subject the EU's institutions, including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), to the external human rights monitoring of the European Court of Human Rights. A draft accession agreement was finalised in 2013.

However, in its [[Opinion 2/13]], delivered on 18 December 2014, the CJEU ruled that the draft agreement was incompatible with [[Treaties of the European Union|EU's treaties]], citing several objections, including potential conflicts with the autonomy of the [[Primacy of European Union law|EU legal order]].<ref>Court of Justice of the European Union, "Opinion 2/13: Accession of the European Union to the ECHR", 18 December 2014.</ref> Negotiations resumed in 2020 to address the CJEU's objections.<ref>{{cite book |publisher=Council of Europe |first=Johan |last=Callewaert |year=2014 |title=Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights |url=https://book.coe.int/en/european-debates/6113-the-accession-of-the-european-union-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights.html |access-date=15 April 2026}}</ref>

The CJEU's objections in Opinion 2/13 primarily concerned the preservation of "mutual trust" between member states and the potential for national courts to bypass the CJEU via [[Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights|Protocol No. 16]]. Furthermore, the initial draft raised jurisdictional issues regarding the [[Common Foreign and Security Policy]] (CFSP).

In 2019, the [[European Commission]] announced the EU's readiness to resume negotiations on accession to the ECHR. In 2020, the Council of Europe tasked the [[Steering Committee for Human Rights]] (CDDH), within the 46+1<ref>Formerly "47+1" because of the Russia expulsion in 2022.</ref> negotiation group, with finalising the legal instruments governing accession. Between 2020 and 2023, the group held multiple meetings and concluded negotiations on all issues except one concerning the CJEU's jurisdiction over alleged fundamental rights violations linked to the EU's common foreign and security policy. The EU undertook to resolve this matter internally and to keep the CDDH informed of developments.<ref>{{Cite web |title=EU accession to the ECHR ('46+1' Group)
|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-cooperation/accession-of-the-european-union-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights |website=[[Council of Europe]] |access-date=23 February 2026 |language=en}}</ref>

On 17 March 2023, the ''Draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms'' was adopted. This draft agreement would allow the European Union to take part in the defence of respondent States before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) through a co-respondent mechanism. Likewise, the European Union would accede to the Convention as well as to its [[Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights|Additional Protocol No. 1]] and [[Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights|No. 6]], but not to [[Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights|No. 13]], concerning the total abolition of the death penalty, even though it has already been ratified by all its Member States. As this is an amending protocol, all States Parties to the Convention will have to ratify it for it to enter into force.<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |title=18th meeting of the CDDH ad hoc negotiation group on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights |url=https://rm.coe.int/version-consolidee-finale-des-projets-d-instruments-d-adhesion/1680aaaecd |format=pdf |website=[[Council of Europe]] |date=17 March 2023 |access-date=23 February 2026 |language=en}}</ref> The finalization of the process has since hinged on resolving the remaining legal complexities surrounding the CFSP and the formal ratification requirements.<ref>{{Cite web |first=Florence |last=Merloz |date=12 April 2023 |title=Un pas en avant vers l'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la CEDH |language=fr |trans-title=A step forward towards the accession of the European Union to the ECHR |url=https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/un-pas-en-avant-vers-l-adhesion-de-l-union-europeenne-cedh |access-date=2026-02-14 |website=Dalloz Actualité}}</ref>

This draft requires the referral of the matter to the [[Court of Justice of the European Union|CJEU]] and the obtaining of a favourable opinion before the signature procedure can begin.<ref>{{Cite web |language=en |first=Nicoletta |last=Ionta |title=EU one step closer to ECHR accession, says EU justice chief |url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/eu-one-step-closer-to-echr-accession-says-eu-justice-chief/ |url-access=limited |website=[[Euractiv]] |date=12 June 2025}}</ref> This referral ultimately took place on 26 January 2026.<ref>{{Cite web |language=en |title=Opinion 1/25: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62025CU0001 |website=eur-lex.europa.eu |date=2026-01-26 |access-date=23 February 2026}}</ref> The time between this referral and the delivery of the opinion is estimated at between 18 and 24 months.<ref name=":10" />

==Drafting==
The convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the 1689 Scottish [[Claim of Right Act 1689]], to the 1689 [[English Bill of Rights]], the 1791 [[U.S. Bill of Rights]], the 1789 French [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]], or the first part of the German [[Grundgesetz|Basic Law]]. Statements of principle are, from a juridical point of view, not determinative and require and have given occasion to extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.<ref>{{cite book |first1=D. |last1=Vitkauskas |first2=G. |last2=Dikov |url=https://rm.coe.int/protecting-the-right-to-a-fair-trial-under-the-european-convention-on-/168075a4dd |title=Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial under the European Convention on Human Rights: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners |edition=2nd |location=Strasbourg |publisher=Council of Europe |date=September 2017 |pages=11–15}}</ref>

==Convention articles==
As amended by Protocol 11, the convention consists of three parts. The main rights and freedoms are contained in Section I, which consists of Articles 2 to 18. Section II (Articles 19 to 51) sets up the court and its rules of operation. Section III contains various concluding provisions.

Before the entry into force of Protocol 11, Section II (Article 19) set up the commission and the court, Sections III (Articles 20 to 37) and IV (Articles 38 to 59) included the high-level machinery for the operation of, respectively, the commission and the court, and Section V contained various concluding provisions.

Many of the articles in Section I are structured in two paragraphs: the first sets out a basic right or freedom (such as Article 2(1) – the right to life) but the second contains exclusions, exceptions or limitations on the basic right (such as Article 2(2) – which excepts certain uses of force leading to death).

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 1"></span>Article 1 – respecting rights===
{{Main|Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 1 simply binds the signatory parties to secure the rights under the other articles of the convention "within their jurisdiction". In exceptional cases, "jurisdiction" may not be confined to a contracting state's own national territory; the obligation to secure convention rights then also extends to foreign territories, such as occupied land in which the state exercises effective control.

In ''[[Loizidou v Turkey]]'',<ref>(Preliminary Objections) (1995) 20 EHRR 99</ref> the [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled that jurisdiction of member states to the convention extended to areas under that state's effective control as a result of military action.

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 2"></span>Article 2 – life===
{{Main|Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

[[File:Supreme Court of the Netherlands The Hague 2020.jpg|thumb|In 2019, the [[Supreme Court of the Netherlands]] cited the article 2 of the ECHR to say that the government must [[Climate justice#Netherlands|limit climate change]] to protect human health.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Isabella |last=Kaminski |title=Dutch supreme court upholds landmark ruling demanding climate action |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-ruling-demanding-climate-action |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=20 December 2019 |access-date=20 December 2019}}</ref>]]

Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life. The right to life extends only to human beings, not to animals,<ref name="korff">Korff, Douwe (November 2006). "The Right to Life: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights". ''Human Rights Handbook'' No. 8. Council of Europe. p. 10</ref> nor to "legal persons" such as corporations.<ref name="korff"/> In ''[[Evans v United Kingdom]]'', the court ruled that the question of whether the right to life extends to a human embryo fell within a state's [[margin of appreciation]]. In ''Vo v France'',<ref>[https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61887 Vo V. France] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810115437/http://echr.ketse.com/doc/53924.00-en-20040708/view/ |date=10 August 2018 }}. Echr.ketse.com. Retrieved on 12 July 2013.</ref> the court declined to extend the right to life to an unborn child, while stating that "it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention".<ref>''Vo v. France'', section 85 of the judgment</ref>

The court has ruled that states have three main duties under Article 2:

# a duty to refrain from unlawful killing,
# a duty to investigate suspicious deaths, and
# in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life.<ref>Jacobs & White, p. 56</ref>

The first paragraph of the article contains an exception for [[Capital punishment|lawful execution]]s, although this exception has largely been superseded by Protocols 6 and 13. [[Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights|Protocol 6]] prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in peacetime, while Protocol 13 extends the prohibition to all circumstances.

The second paragraph of Article 2 provides that death resulting from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary".

Signatory states to the convention can only derogate from the rights contained in Article 2 for deaths which result from lawful acts of war.

The European Court of Human Rights did not rule upon the right to life until 1995, when in ''[[McCann and Others v United Kingdom]]''<ref>(1995) 21 EHRR 97</ref> it ruled that the exception contained in the second paragraph does not constitute situations when it is permitted to kill, but situations where it is permitted to use force which might result in the deprivation of life.<ref>(1995) 21 EHRR 97 at para. 148</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 3"></span>Article 3 – torture===
{{Main|Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 3 prohibits [[torture]] and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right. This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention.

The court has emphasised the fundamental nature of Article 3 in holding that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms&nbsp;... irrespective of the victim's conduct".<ref>''[[Chahal v. United Kingdom]]'' (1997) 23 EHRR 413.</ref> The court has also held that states cannot deport or [[Extradition|extradite]] individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state.<ref>''[[Chahal v. United Kingdom]]'' (1997) 23 EHRR 413; ''[[Soering v. United Kingdom]]'' (1989) 11 EHRR 439.</ref>

The first case to examine Article 3 was the [[Greek case]], which set an influential precedent.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Dickson |first1=Brice|author-link=Brice Dickson |title=The European Convention on Human Rights and the Conflict in Northern Ireland |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-957138-3|language=en|date=2010|page=139}}</ref> In ''[[Ireland v. United Kingdom]]'' (1979–1980) the court ruled that the [[five techniques]] developed by the United Kingdom ([[stress position|wall-standing]], [[hooding]], [[sensory overload|subjection to noise]], [[deprivation of sleep]], and [[starvation|deprivation of food and drink]]), as used against fourteen detainees in Northern Ireland by the United Kingdom were "inhuman and degrading" and breached the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not amount to "torture".<ref>''[[Ireland v. United Kingdom]]'' (1979–1980) 2 EHRR 25 at para 167.</ref>

In ''Aksoy v. Turkey'' (1997) the court found Turkey guilty of torture in 1996 in the case of a detainee who was suspended by his arms while his hands were tied behind his back.<ref>''Aksoy v. Turkey'' (1997) 23 EHRR 553. The process was referred to by the Court as "Palestinian hanging" but more commonly known as [[Strappado]].</ref>

''Selmouni v. France'' (2000) the court has appeared to be more open to finding states guilty of torture ruling that since the convention is a "living instrument", treatment which it had previously characterized as inhuman or degrading treatment might in future be regarded as torture.<ref>''Selmouni v. France'' (2000) 29 EHRR 403 at para. 101.</ref>

In 2014, after new information was uncovered that showed the decision to use the five techniques in Northern Ireland in 1971–1972 had been taken by British ministers,<ref>{{cite news |title=British ministers sanctioned torture of NI internees |newspaper=The Irish Times |date=21 March 2013 |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/british-ministers-sanctioned-torture-of-ni-internees-1.1820882 |first1=Mark |last1=Hennessy |access-date=30 May 2019}}</ref> the [[Irish Government]] asked the European Court of Human Rights to review its judgement. In 2018, by six votes to one, the court declined.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-181585|title=Ireland v. the United Kingdom |website=HUDOC }}</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 4"></span>Article 4 – servitude===
{{Main|Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 4 prohibits [[slavery]], servitude and [[forced labour]] but exempts labour:
* done as a normal part of imprisonment,
* in the form of [[compulsory military service]] or work done as an alternative by conscientious objectors,
* required to be done during a [[state of emergency]], and
* considered to be a part of a person's normal "civic obligations".

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 5"></span>Article 5 – liberty and security===
{{Main|Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Liberty and security of the person are taken as a "compound" concept – security of the person has not been subject to separate interpretation by the court.

Article 5 provides the right to [[liberty]], subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence. The article also provides those arrested with the right to be informed, in a language they understand, of the reasons for the arrest and any charge they face, the right of prompt access to judicial proceedings to determine the legality of the arrest or detention, to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, and the right to compensation in the case of arrest or detention in violation of this article.
* [[Assanidze v. Georgia|''Assanidze v. Georgia'', App. No. 71503/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 8 April 2004)]]

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 6"></span>Article 6 – fair trial===
{{Main|Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

[[File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F080597-0004, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Verhandlung II. Senat.jpg|thumb|The right to a [[Due process|fair trial]], proclaimed in Article 6, is one of the most invoked by plaintiffs.]]
Article 6 provides a detailed [[right to a fair trial]], including the right to a [[public hearing]] before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the [[presumption of innocence]], and other minimum rights for those charged with a criminal offence (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).<ref>D. Vitkauskas, G. Dikov (September 2017). [https://rm.coe.int/protecting-the-right-to-a-fair-trial-under-the-european-convention-on-/168075a4dd "Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial under the European Convention on Human Rights: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners"]. 2nd Edition. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.</ref>

The majority of convention violations found by the court, are excessive delays in violation of the "reasonable time" requirement, in civil and criminal proceedings before national courts, mostly in [[Italy]] and [[France]]. Under the "independent tribunal" requirement, the court has ruled that military judges in Turkish state security courts are incompatible with Article 6. In compliance with this Article, Turkey has since adopted a law abolishing these courts.

Another significant set of violations concerns the "confrontation clause" of Article 6 (i.e. the right to examine witnesses or have them examined). In this respect, problems of compliance with Article 6 may arise when national laws allow the use in evidence of the testimonies of absent, anonymous and vulnerable witnesses.
* ''[[McLibel Case|Steel v. United Kingdom]]'' (1998) 28 EHRR 603
* ''[[Assanidze v. Georgia]]'' [2004] ECHR 140
* ''[[Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom]]'' (2012) – [[Abu Qatada al-Filistini|Abu Qatada]] could not be deported to Jordan as that would be a violation of Article 6 "given the real risk of the admission of evidence obtained by torture". This was the first time the court ruled that such an expulsion would be a violation of Article 6.<ref name="Tele 17.01.2012">{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9019823/Abu-Qatada-cannot-be-deported-to-Jordan-European-judges-rule.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9019823/Abu-Qatada-cannot-be-deported-to-Jordan-European-judges-rule.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Abu Qatada cannot be deported to Jordan, European judges rule |author=Duncan Gardham |date=17 January 2012 |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |access-date=23 February 2012}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 7"></span>Article 7 – retroactivity===
{{Main|Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

{{See also|Ex post facto law}}
Article 7 prohibits the retroactive criminalisation of acts and omissions. No person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence at the time of its commission. The article states that a criminal offence is one under either national or international law, which would permit a party to prosecute someone for a crime which was not illegal under domestic law at the time, so long as it was prohibited by [[international law]]. The Article also prohibits a heavier penalty being imposed than was applicable at the time when the criminal act was committed.

Article 7 incorporates the legal principle ''[[nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege]]'' (no crime, no penalty without law) into the convention.

Relevant cases are:
* ''[[Kokkinakis v. Greece]]'' [1993] ECHR 20
* ''[[S.A.S. v. France]]'' [2014] ECHR 69

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 8"></span>Article 8 – privacy===
{{Main|Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his [[privacy of correspondence|correspondence]]", subject to restrictions that are "in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".<ref>[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human rights]</ref> This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. There have been cases discussing consensual familial sexual relationships, and how the criminalisation of this may violate this article. However, the ECHR still allows such familial sexual acts to be criminal.<ref name="Roffee 2014">{{cite journal|url=https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article-abstract/14/3/541/644298|last=Roffee |first=J. A. |date=September 2014|title=No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights|journal=Human Rights Law Review |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=541–572 |doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngu023 |publication-date=23 July 2014|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

This may be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat broad interpretation of the [[right to privacy]]. Furthermore, Article&nbsp;8 sometimes comprises [[positive obligations]]:<ref>''Von Hannover v Germany'' [2004] ECHR 294 (24 June 2004), European Court of Human Rights, para 57</ref> whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a state from interfering with rights, and thus ''not'' to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the state to become active, and to ''do'' something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced parent to his/her child).

Relevant cases:
* ''[[Malone v United Kingdom|Malone v. United Kingdom]]'' [1984] ECHR 10, (1984) 7 EHRR 14
* ''[[Goodwin v United Kingdom|Goodwin v. United Kingdom]]'' (2002) ECHR 28957/95
* ''[[Zakharov v. Russia]]'' [2015] ECHR 47143/06
* ''[[Oliari and Others v. Italy]]'' (2015)
* ''[[Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic]]'' (ECtHR April 8, 2021), holding that the nation of the [[Czech Republic]] did not violate the convention by imposing a vaccination mandate on children in that country<ref name="NPR">{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/04/08/985318387/european-court-backs-mandatory-vaccinations-laws-for-children |title=European Court Backs Mandatory Vaccinations For Children |first1=Bill |last1=Chappell |publisher=[[NPR]] |date=April 8, 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-its-about-proportionality-strasbourg-clarifies-human-rights-standards-for-compulsory-vaccination-programmes-by-dolores-utrilla/ |title=Op-Ed: "It's about proportionality! Strasbourg clarifies human rights standards for compulsory vaccination programmes" |first1=Dolores |last1=Utrilla |publisher=EU Law Live |date=April 8, 2021 }}</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 9"></span>Article 9 – conscience and religion===
{{Main|Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 9 provides a right to [[freedom of thought]], conscience and [[freedom of religion|religion]]. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".

Relevant cases:
* ''[[Kokkinakis v. Greece]]'' [1993] ECHR 20
* ''[[Universelles Leben e.V. v. Germany]]'' [1996] (app. no. 29745/96)
* ''[[Buscarini and Others v. San Marino]]'' [1999] ECHR 7 
* ''Pichon and Sajous v. France'' [2001] ECHR 898
* ''[[Leyla Şahin v. Turkey]]'' [2004] ECHR 299
* ''[[Leela Förderkreis E.V. and Others v. Germany]]'' [2008] ECHR
* ''[[Lautsi v. Italy]]'' [2011] ECHR 2412
* ''[[S.A.S. v. France]]'' [2014] ECHR 695
* ''[[Eweida v United Kingdom|Eweida v. United Kingdom]]'' [2013] ECHR 2013

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 10"></span>Article 10 – expression===
{{Main|Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 10 provides the right to [[freedom of expression]], subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:
* interests of national security
* territorial integrity or public safety
* prevention of disorder or crime
* protection of health or morals
* protection of the reputation or the rights of others
* preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
* maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary

Relevant cases:
* ''[[Lingens v. Austria]]'' (1986) 8 EHRR 407
* ''The Observer and The Guardian v. United Kingdom'' (1991) 14 EHRR 153, the "[[Spycatcher]]" case.
* ''[[Bowman v. United Kingdom]]'' [1998] [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-58134 HUDOC], (1998) 26 EHRR 1, distributing vast quantities of anti-abortion material in contravention of election spending laws
* ''Communist Party v. Turkey'' (1998) 26 EHRR 1211
* ''Appleby v. United Kingdom'' (2003) 37 EHRR 38, protests in a private shopping centre
* ''[[TV Vest and Rogaland Pensioners Party v. Norway]]'' (2008)

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 11"></span>Article 11 – association===
{{Main|Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 11 protects the right to [[freedom of assembly]] and association, including the right to form [[trade union]]s, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
Relevant cases:
* ''[[Vogt v. Germany]]'' (1995)
* ''Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and Hep v. Turkey'' (2003) 36 EHRR 59
* ''[[Bączkowski and Others v. Poland]]'' (2005)

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 12"></span>Article 12 – marriage===
{{Main|Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 12 provides a right for women and men of [[marriageable age]] to [[marry]] and establish a family.

Despite multiple invitations, the court has so far refused to apply the protections of this article to [[same-sex marriage]]. The court has defended this on the grounds that the article was intended to apply only to different-sex marriage, and that a wide margin of appreciation must be granted to parties in this area.

In ''[[Goodwin v United Kingdom|Goodwin v. United Kingdom]]'' the court ruled that a law which still classified post-operative [[transsexual]] people under their birth sex violated article 12 as it meant that transsexual people were unable to marry individuals of the opposite sex. This reversed an earlier ruling in ''Rees v. United Kingdom''. This did not, however, alter the Court's understanding that Article 12 protects only different-sex couples.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in ''[[Schalk and Kopf v. Austria]]'' that countries are not required to provide marriage licenses for same-sex couples; however, if a country allows same-sex couple marriage it must be done under the same conditions that opposite-sex couples marriage face,<ref>{{Cite web |title=HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights |url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22002-912%22%5D%7D |access-date=2023-10-28 |website=hudoc.echr.coe.int}}</ref> in order to prevent a breach of article 14 – the prohibition of discrimination. Additionally, the court ruled in the 2015 case of ''[[Oliari and Others v. Italy]]'' that states have a positive obligation to ensure there is a specific legal framework for the recognition and protection of same-sex couples.

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 13"></span>Article 13 – effective remedy===
Article 13 provides for the [[Right to an effective remedy|right for an effective remedy]] before national authorities for violations of rights under the convention. The inability to obtain a [[Legal remedy|remedy]] before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the convention.

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 14"></span>Article 14 – discrimination===
{{main|Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 14 contains a prohibition of [[discrimination]]. This prohibition is broad in some ways and narrow in others. It is broad in that it prohibits discrimination under a potentially unlimited number of grounds. While the article specifically prohibits discrimination based on "sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status", the last of these allows the court to extend to Article 14 protection to other grounds not specifically mentioned such as has been done regarding discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

At the same time, the article's protection is limited in that it only prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the convention. Thus, an applicant must prove discrimination in the enjoyment of a specific right that is guaranteed elsewhere in the convention (e.g. discrimination based on sex – Article 14 – in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression – Article 10).<ref name="Roffee 2014"/><!-- This URL doesn't correspond to the article cited: {{Cite web|url=http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/33349.pdf|author=Roffee, J. A. |date=2014 |title=No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights}} -->

Protocol 12 extends this prohibition to cover discrimination in any legal right, even when that legal right is not protected under the convention, so long as it is provided for in national law.

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 15"></span>Article 15 – derogations===
{{main|Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 15 allows contracting states to [[derogate]] from certain rights guaranteed by the convention in a time of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation". Permissible derogations under article 15 must meet three substantive conditions:

# there must be a public emergency threatening the life of the nation;
# any measures taken in response must be "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation"; and
# the measures taken in response to it must be in compliance with a state's other obligations under international law.

In addition to these substantive requirements, the derogation must be procedurally sound. There must be some formal announcement of the derogation and notice of the derogation and any measures adopted under it, and the ending of the derogation must be communicated to the [[Secretary-General of the Council of Europe]].<ref>Article 15(3).</ref>

As of 2016, only eight member states had ever invoked derogations.<ref>[https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/FS_Derogation_ENG Derogation in time of emergency] ECtHR Press Unit, 2016</ref> The court is quite permissive in accepting a state's derogations from the convention but applies a higher degree of scrutiny in deciding whether measures taken by states under a derogation are, in the words of Article 15, "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation". Thus in ''A&nbsp;v&nbsp;United Kingdom'', the court dismissed a claim that a derogation lodged by the British government in response to the [[September 11 attacks]] was invalid, but went on to find that measures taken by the United Kingdom under that derogation were disproportionate.<ref>[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=002-1647 <nowiki>[2009]</nowiki> ECHR 301] paras. 181 and 190.</ref>

Examples of such derogations include:
* In the 1969 [[Greek case]], the [[European Commission of Human Rights]] ruled that the derogation was invalid because the alleged Communist subversion did not pose a sufficient threat.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nugraha |first1=Ignatius Yordan |title=Human rights derogation during coup situations |journal=The International Journal of Human Rights |date=2018 |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=194–206 |doi=10.1080/13642987.2017.1359551|s2cid=149386303 |doi-access=free |hdl=1854/LU-8616103 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This is the only time {{asof|2015|lc=y}} that the convention system has rejected an attempted derogation.<ref>{{cite journal|title=À Propos de "Les Organes du Conseil de l'Europe et le Concept de Démocratie dans le Cadre de Deux Affaires Grecques" de Pierre Mertens: Le Conseil de l'Europe et la Démocratie dans les Circonstances Exceptionnelles |last=Ergec|first= Rusen|pages= 204–217|date=2015|issue=1–2 |language=fr|journal= Revue belge de Droit international|issn=2566-1906}}</ref>
* [[Operation Demetrius]]—Internees arrested without trial pursuant to "Operation Demetrius" could not complain to the [[European Commission of Human Rights]] about breaches of Article 5 because on 27 June 1957, the UK lodged a notice with the Council of Europe declaring that there was a "public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention".<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Detention of Suspected Terrorists in Northern Ireland and Great Britain|first=Brice|last=Dickson|journal=[[University of Richmond Law Review]]|volume=43|issue=3|date=March 2009|url=http://lawreview.richmond.edu/the-detention-of-suspected-terrorists-in-northern-ireland-and-great-britain/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515110821/http://lawreview.richmond.edu/the-detention-of-suspected-terrorists-in-northern-ireland-and-great-britain/|archive-date=15 May 2013}}</ref>

==={{anchor|Article 16}}Article 16 – foreign parties===
Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners. The court has ruled that European Union member states cannot consider the nationals of other member states to be aliens.<ref>In ''Piermont v. France'' 27 April 1995, [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57925 314 ECHR (series A)]</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 17"></span>Article 17 – abuse of rights===
Article 17 provides that no one may use the rights guaranteed by the convention to seek the abolition or limitation of rights guaranteed in the convention. This addresses instances where states seek to restrict a human right in the name of another human right, or where individuals rely on a human right to undermine other human rights (for example where an individual issues a death threat).
* ''[[Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany]]'' (1957), the Commission refused to consider the appeal by the [[Communist Party of Germany]], stating that the communist doctrine advocated by them is incompatible with the convention, citing article 17's limitations on the rights to the extent necessarily to prevent their subversion by adherents of a totalitarian doctrine.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rainey |first1=Bernadette |first2=Wicks | last2=Elizabeth |first3=Overy|last3=Clare |date=2014 |title=Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TGygAwAAQBAJ&q=%22250/57%22+communist&pg=PA121|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=121 |isbn=978-0199655083 }}</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Article 18"></span>Article 18 – permitted restrictions===
{{main|Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Article 18 provides that any limitations on the rights provided for in the convention may be used only for the purpose for which they are provided. For example, Article 5, which guarantees the right to personal freedom, may be explicitly limited in order to bring a suspect before a judge. To use pre-trial detention as a means of intimidation of a person under a false pretext is, therefore, a limitation of right (to freedom) which does not serve an explicitly provided purpose (to be brought before a judge), and is therefore contrary to Article 18.

==Convention protocols==
{{As of|July 2025}}, seventeen protocols to the convention have been opened for signature. These can be divided into two main groups: those amending the framework of the convention system, and those expanding the rights that can be protected. The former require unanimous ratification by member states before coming into force, while the latter require a certain number of states to sign before coming into force.

===Protocol 1===
This Protocol contains three different rights which the signatories could not agree to place in the convention itself.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=009 |title=Full list |publisher=Coe.int |access-date=17 October 2018}}</ref> [[Monaco]] and [[Switzerland]] have signed but never ratified Protocol 1.<ref>[https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=009 Protocol signatory and ratification info], Council of Europe treaties office.</ref>

====<!--Do not add an anchor "Article 1" here. That would duplicate the one for the main treaty's Article 1 which is invalid and unhelpful.--><span class="anchor" id="Protocol 1 Article 1"></span>Article 1 – property====
Article 1 ("A1P1")<ref>UK Supreme Court, [https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0148-press-summary.pdf ''R (on the application of Mott) (Respondent) v Environment Agency (Appellant)'' (2018) UKSC 10: Press Summary], published 14 February 2018, accessed 28 December 2018</ref> provides that "every natural or [[legal person]] is entitled to the [[Right to property|peaceful enjoyment of his possessions]]". The [[European Court of Human Rights]] acknowledged a violation of the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, also, in the uncertainty – for the owner – about the future of the property, and in the absence of an allowance.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Buonomo |first=Giampiero |title=Legislatore e magistratura si "scontrano" anche sulla rottamazione delle cose sequestrate |trans-title=Legislature and judiciary "clash" also over the scrapping of seized property |journal=Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online |date=December 18, 2001 |url=https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89310127 |url-access= |via= |language=it |access-date=21 March 2016 |archive-date=24 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160324160801/https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89310127 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In the case of ''Mifsud and others v Malta'' (38770/17) the Maltese state was found to have violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the convention. The case involved a plot of land owned by the Mifsud family and their heirs which was expropriated twice (in 1984 and in 2012). The court, in its judgment, stated that

{{blockquote|the [Maltese] Constitutional Court had no basis on which to ground its finding. The Court is disconcerted by the circumstances of the present case which led to an expropriation of property being endorsed without anyone being able to assert the reasons behind such an expropriation.<ref>[https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-213760 Case of ''Mifsud and others v. Malta''] {{primary source inline|date=February 2023}}</ref>}}

In 2013 the [[Court of Appeal (England and Wales)|Court of Appeal in England and Wales]] upheld a judgment in favour of [[Infinis]] against [[Ofgem]], who had denied the company access to [[Renewable Obligation Certificate]]s, a form of funding incentive for [[renewable energy]] generation, to which they were entitled. This case represented the first UK case where A1P1 compensation had been granted in relation to a [[regulatory authority]].<ref>[[Blackstone Chambers]], [https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/case-r_infinis_v_gas/ ''R (Infinis) v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority''], published on 13 February 2013, accessed on 16 May 2025</ref>

====<span class="anchor" id="Protocol 1 Article 2"></span>Article 2 – education====
Article 2 ("A2P1")<ref>UK Supreme Court, [https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0095_press_summary_0d40e0239e.pdf Press Summary: In the matter of an application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review (Appellant)], [2025] UKSC 40, published on 19 November 2025, accessed on 23 January 2026</ref> provides for the right not to be denied an education and the [[freedom of education|right for parents to have their children educated]] in accordance with their religious and other views. It does not however guarantee any particular level of education of any particular quality.<ref>See the ''[[Belgian linguistic case]]''.</ref>

Although phrased in the Protocol as a negative right, in ''[[Leyla Şahin v. Turkey|Şahin v. Turkey]]'' the court ruled that:
{{blockquote|it would be hard to imagine that institutions of higher education existing at a given time do not come within the scope of the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No 1. Although that Article does not impose a duty on the Contracting States to set up institutions of higher education, any State doing so will be under an obligation to afford an effective right of access to them. In a democratic society, the right to education, which is indispensable to the furtherance of human rights, plays such a fundamental role that a restrictive interpretation of the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 would not be consistent with the aim or purpose of that provision.<ref>''[https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70956 Sahin v. Turkey]'' at para. 137.</ref>}}

====<span class="anchor" id="Protocol 1 Article 3"></span>Article 3 – elections====
Article 3 provides for the right to elections performed by secret ballot, that are also free and that occur at regular intervals.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168006377c |title=Full list |publisher=Coe.int |date=1 November 1998 |access-date=17 October 2018}}</ref>
* ''[[Matthews v. United Kingdom]]'' (1999) 28 EHRR 361

===Protocol 4 – civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion===
Article 1 prohibits the imprisonment of people for inability to fulfil a contract. Article 2 provides for a [[freedom of movement|right to freely move]] within a country once lawfully there and for a right to leave any country. Article 3 prohibits the expulsion of nationals and provides for the right of an individual to enter a country of their nationality. Article 4 prohibits the collective expulsion of foreigners.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Protocol No. 4 to the Convention |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/echr-toolkit/protocole-4 |access-date=October 28, 2022 |website=Council of Europe Portal}}</ref>

[[Turkey]] and the [[United Kingdom]] have signed but never ratified Protocol 4. [[Greece]] and [[Switzerland]] have neither signed nor ratified this protocol.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/046/signatures?p_auth=sPVGQQe3 |title=Full list |publisher=Coe.int |access-date=17 October 2018}}</ref>

The United Kingdom's failure to ratify this protocol is due to concerns over the interaction of Article 2 and Article 3 with [[British nationality law]]. Specifically, several classes of "British national" (such as [[British National (Overseas)]]) do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and are subject to immigration control there. In 2009, the UK government stated that it had no plans to ratify Protocol 4 because of concerns that those articles could be taken as conferring that right.<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90115w0003.htm Lords Hansard text for 15 Jan 200915 Jan 2009 (pt 0003)]. Publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved on 12 July 2013.</ref>

===Protocol 6 – restriction of death penalty===
[[File:Guillotine Luxembourg 01.jpg|thumb| [[Guillotine]] at the [[National Museum of Archaeology, History and Art]] in Luxembourg.  Protocols 6 and 13 aim to abolish the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]] in Europe.]]
Article 6 requires parties to restrict the application of the [[death penalty]] except for "acts committed in time of war" or of "imminent threat of war".

Every Council of Europe member state has signed and ratified Protocol 6.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=114|title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Protocol 6|website=Treaty Office}}</ref>

===Protocol 7 – crime and family===
* Article 1 provides for a [[right to fair trial|right to fair procedures]] for [[permanent residency|lawfully resident]] foreigners facing expulsion.
* Article 2 provides for the right to [[appeal]] in criminal matters.
* Article 3 provides for compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice.
* Article 4 prohibits the re-trial of anyone who has already been finally acquitted or convicted of a particular offence ([[double jeopardy]]).
* Article 5 provides for equality between [[spouse]]s.

Despite having signed the protocol more than thirty years ago Germany and the Netherlands have never ratified it. Turkey, which signed the protocol in 1985, ratified it in 2016, becoming the latest member state to do so. The United Kingdom has neither signed nor ratified the protocol.<ref>{{cite web|author=Treaty Office |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=117 |title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Protocol 7 |publisher=Coe.int |access-date=14 September 2024}}</ref>

===Protocol 12 – discrimination===
{{main|Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Protocol 12 applies the current expansive and indefinite grounds of prohibited discrimination in [[#Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination|Article 14]] to the exercise of any legal right and to the actions (including the obligations) of public authorities. The additional scope of the Protocol covers four categories of cases:<ref>{{cite web|title=Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms |url=https://rm.coe.int/16800cce8d |website=Council of Europe |date=4 November 2000 |access-date=5 July 2025 |page=5 |format=pdf}}</ref>

*Cases where a person is subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of any right specifically conferred upon the individual by national law (and not solely rights provided under the Convention);
*Cases where a person is subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of any right arising from clear obligations imposed upon public authorities under national law (where such authorities are legally obliged to act in a particular manner);
*Cases involving discrimination by public authorities in the exercise of discretionary powers (such as grants or subsidies);
*Cases involving discrimination resulting from other acts or omissions by public authorities (for instance, the conduct of law enforcement officials in quelling a riot).

The Protocol entered into force on 1 April 2005 and has ({{as of|March 2018|lc=y}}) been ratified by 20 member states. Several member states—[[Bulgaria]], [[Denmark]], [[France]], [[Lithuania]], [[Monaco]], [[Poland]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], and the [[United Kingdom]]—have not signed the protocol.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Protocol 12|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=177|access-date=2024-09-14|website=Treaty Office|language=en-GB}}</ref>

The United Kingdom government has declined to sign Protocol 12 on the basis that they believe the wording of protocol is too wide and would result in a flood of new cases testing the extent of the new provision. They believe that the phrase "rights set forth by law" might include international conventions to which the UK is not a party, and would result in incorporation of these instruments by stealth.<ref name="UK position"/>

It has been suggested that the protocol is therefore in a [[catch-22 (logic)|catch-22]], since the UK will decline to either sign or ratify the protocol until the [[European Court of Human Rights]] has addressed the meaning of the provision, while the court is hindered in doing so by the lack of applications to the court concerning the protocol caused by the decisions of Europe's most populous states—including the UK—not to ratify the protocol. The UK government, nevertheless, stated in 2004 that it "agrees in principle that the ECHR should contain a provision against discrimination that is free-standing and not parasitic on the other Convention rights".<ref name="UK position">[http://www.humanrights.gov.uk/ngo/reviews/appendix6.pdf 2004 UK Government's position] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060225150759/http://www.humanrights.gov.uk/ngo/reviews/appendix6.pdf |date=25 February 2006 }}</ref> The first judgment that found a violation of Protocol No. 12, ''[[Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina]]'', was delivered in 2009.

===Protocol 13 – complete abolition of death penalty===
Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of the [[death penalty]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=187 |title=Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=27 June 2008}}</ref> Currently all Council of Europe member states but [[Azerbaijan]] have ratified Protocol 13.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=187 |title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 187
 |publisher=Council of Europe |access-date=14 September 2024}}</ref>

However, account must be taken of the position of the Court, which in practice has regarded the Convention as prohibiting the death penalty. In its 2010 judgment in ''Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom'', the Court held that Article 2 and Article 3 of the Convention prohibit the death penalty, owing to the general trend towards its abolition among the States Parties to the Convention.<ref>{{cite web |title=Case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhu v. The United Kingdom |url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-97575%22]} |date=2 March 2010 |access-date=5 July 2025 |quote=All but two of the member States have now signed Protocol No. 13 and all but three of the States which have signed it have ratified it. These figures, together with consistent State practice in observing the moratorium on capital punishment, are strongly indicative that Article 2 has been amended so as to prohibit the death penalty in all circumstances. Against this background, the Court does not consider that the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 § 1 continues to act as a bar to its interpreting the words 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' in Article 3 as including the death penalty. |page=120 |type=Judgment}}</ref> This prohibition applies to all States Parties to the Convention, including those which have not ratified Protocol 13.

Accordingly, the ratification of this Protocol is now essentially symbolic: it demonstrates a State Party’s voluntary commitment to the abolitionist trend in Europe, without constituting an obligation to which it is compelled to adhere.

===Protocol 16 – dialogue===
Protocol 16 was adopted on 2 October 2013 and entered into force on 1 August 2018.<ref>{{cite web |title=Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS No. 214)
|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=214 |website=Council of Europe |access-date=5 July 2025}}.</ref> It allows the highest national courts of ratifying States to request non-binding ''advisory opinions'' from the Court on questions of principle concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. The purpose of this Protocol is to foster dialogue between courts and to strengthen the ‘constitutional’ role of the Court.<ref>{{cite web |title=Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms |url=https://rm.coe.int/1680084832 |website=Council of Europe |access-date=5 July 2025 |quote=The Group of Wise Persons concluded that 'it would be useful to introduce a system under which the national courts could apply to the Court for advisory opinions on legal questions relating to interpretation of the Convention and the protocols thereto, in order to foster dialogue between courts and enhance the Court's "constitutional" role'.}}</ref>

Only courts designated as the "highest" by each State can submit requests, which must relate to a pending domestic case and raise a question of principle. If the request is accepted by a five-judge panel, the Grand Chamber delivers the opinion; the national judge sits ''ex officio''.

Advisory opinions are formally non-binding under Article 5 of the Protocol,<ref>{{cite web |title=Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms |url=https://rm.coe.int/1680084832 |website=Council of Europe |access-date=5 July 2025}}</ref> but they carry strong persuasive weight in national proceedings and are generally followed by the Strasbourg Court in later cases.

Since its entry into force, the Court has received eleven requests and issued seven opinions.<ref>{{cite web |title=Advisory opinions under Protocol No. 16 of the Convention|url=https://www.echr.coe.int/en/advisory-opinions |website=European Court of Human Rights |access-date=5 July 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=List of advisory opinions delivered and requests for advisory opinion rejected |url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#{%22fulltext%22:[%22NOT%20\%22legal%20summary\%22%22],%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22PROTOCOL16%22]} |website=European Court of Human Rights |access-date=5 July 2025 <!--Case A47-2021-001 is an error from the data of the ECHR, it is not a case of P16-->}}</ref> Topics addressed include surrogacy and recognition of parenthood (France),<ref>{{cite web |title=Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother |url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6380464-8364383%22]} |website=European Court of Human Rights |date=10 April 2019 |access-date=5 July 2025}}</ref> defamation and double jeopardy (Armenia),<ref>{{cite web |title=Advisory opinion concerning the use of the 'blanket reference' or 'legislation by reference' technique in the definition of an offence and the standards of comparison between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and the amended criminal law|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6708535-9909864%22]} |website=European Court of Human Rights |date=13 July 2022 |access-date=5 July 2025}}</ref> and adult adoption (Finland).<ref>{{cite web |title=Advisory opinion on the procedural status and rights of a biological parent in proceedings for the adoption of an adult|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-7623141-10493170%22]} |website=European Court of Human Rights |date=13 April 2023 |access-date=5 July 2025}}</ref>

As of November 2025, twenty-six States have ratified the Protocol and three more have signed it without ratifying it.<ref>{{cite web |title=Chart of signatures and ratifications of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=214 |website=Council of Europe |access-date=25 November 2025}}</ref>

===Summary of ratifications of the substantive additional protocols===
{|class="wikitable centre sortable" valign="top"
|+ Signatures and ratifications, by additional protocol and by state party<ref>{{cite web |title=Simplified Table of Signatures and Ratifications of the Additional Protocols to the Convention|url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/by-subject-matters?module=signatures-by-treaties&numSTE=009%2C046%2C114%2C117%2C177%2C187%2C214 |website=Treaty Office of the Council of Europe |access-date=25 November 2025}}</ref>
|-
!! scope="col" | State Party	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 1|P1]]	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 4 – civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion|P4]]	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 6 – restriction of death penalty|P6]]	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 7 – crime and family|P7]]	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 12 – discrimination|P12]]	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 13 – complete abolition of death penalty|P13]]	!! scope="col" | [[#Protocol 16 - dialogue|P16]]
|-
|{{flag|Albania}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
 | {{flag|Andorra}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Armenia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Austria}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Azerbaijan}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Belgium}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Bosnia and Herzegovina}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Bulgaria}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Croatia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Cyprus}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Czech Republic}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Denmark}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Estonia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Finland}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|France}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Georgia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Germany}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Greece}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Hungary}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Iceland}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Ireland}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Italy}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed
|-
  | {{flag|Latvia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Liechtenstein}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Lithuania}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Luxembourg}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Malta}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Moldova}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Monaco}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Montenegro}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Netherlands}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|North Macedonia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Norway}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed
|-
  | {{flag|Poland}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Portugal}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Romania}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|San Marino}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Serbia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Slovakia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Slovenia}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Spain}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Sweden}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|Switzerland}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
  | {{flag|Turkey}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed
|-
  | {{flag|Ukraine}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}
|-
  | {{flag|United Kingdom}}	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	|| style=text-align:center|Signed	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||  	||  	|| {{Yes|Ratified}}	||
|-
! scope="row" | Ratifications (total)	|| '''44/46'''	|| '''42/46'''	|| '''46/46'''	|| '''43/46'''	|| '''20/46'''	|| '''45/46'''	|| '''26/46'''
|-
! scope="row" | Signatories only (total) || '''2/2'''	|| '''2/4'''	|| 	'''0''' || '''2/3'''	|| '''17/26'''	|| '''1/1'''	|| '''3/20'''
|-
! scope="row" |  Non-signatories (total) || '''0'''	|| '''2'''	|| 	'''0'''	|| '''1'''	|| '''9''' || '''0'''	|| '''17'''
|}

===Procedural and institutional protocols===
The convention's provisions affecting institutional and procedural matters have been altered several times by means of protocols. These amendments have, with the exception of Protocol 2, amended the text of the convention. Protocol 2 did not amend the text of the convention as such but stipulated that it was to be treated as an integral part of the text. All of these protocols have required the unanimous ratification of all the member states of the Council of Europe to enter into force.

====Protocol 11====
Protocols 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 have now been superseded by Protocol 11 which entered into force on 1 November 1998.<ref>{{cite web |title=List of the treaties coming from the subject-matter: Human Rights (Convention and Protocols only) |url=http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?MA=3&CM=7&CL=ENG |access-date=21 February 2009 |archive-date=7 July 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707021605/http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?MA=3&CM=7&CL=ENG |url-status=dead }}</ref> It established a fundamental change in the machinery of the convention. It abolished the commission, allowing individuals to apply directly to the court, which was given compulsory jurisdiction and altered the latter's structure. Previously states could ratify the convention without accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights. The protocol also abolished the judicial functions of the Committee of Ministers.

====Protocol 14====
{{main|Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights}}

Protocol 14 follows on from Protocol 11 in proposing to further improve the efficiency of the court. It seeks to "filter" out cases that have less chance of succeeding along with those that are broadly similar to cases brought previously against the same member state. Furthermore, a case will not be considered admissible where an applicant has not suffered a "significant disadvantage". This latter ground can only be used when an examination of the application on the merits is not considered necessary and where the subject-matter of the application had already been considered by a national court.

A new mechanism was introduced by Protocol 14 to assist enforcement of judgements by the Committee of Ministers. The committee can ask the court for an interpretation of a judgement and can even bring a member state before the court for non-compliance of a previous judgement against that state. Protocol 14 also allows for [[Relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights#EU accession to ECHR|European Union accession to the convention]].<ref>See Article 17 of the [https://rm.coe.int/1680083711 Protocol No. 14] amending Article 59 of the Convention.</ref> The protocol has been ratified by every Council of Europe member state, Russia being last in February 2010. It entered into force on 1 June 2010.<ref>[https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=194 Chart of signatures and ratifications of Protocol 14]</ref>

A provisional '''Protocol 14bis''' had been opened for signature in 2009.<ref name="auto"/> Pending the ratification of Protocol 14 itself, 14bis was devised to allow the court to implement revised procedures in respect of the states which have ratified it. It allowed single judges to reject manifestly inadmissible applications made against the states that have ratified the protocol. It also extended the competence of three-judge chambers to declare applications made against those states admissible and to decide on their merits where there already is a well-established case law of the court. Now that all Council of Europe member states have ratified Protocol 14, Protocol 14bis has lost its ''raison d'être'' and according to its own terms ceased to have any effect when Protocol 14 entered into force on 1 June 2010.

====Protocol 15====
Protocol 15, opened for signature by the States Parties on 24 June 2013 and entered into force on 1 August 2021, amends the Convention by introducing a reference to the principle of subsidiarity and to the margin of appreciation left to national judges in the interpretation of the Convention.<ref>{{cite web|access-date=5 July 2025 |date=24 June 2013 |title=Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms |url=https://rm.coe.int/1680084831 |website=[[European Court of Human Rights]]}}.</ref> With Protocol 15, the time limit for lodging an application with the Court is reduced from six to four months from the date of the final national decision. In addition, judges are no longer eligible for election after the age of 65, which allows them to complete a full term of office. Finally, the Court may declare an application inadmissible even if the case has not been examined by a domestic court.

== Migration and externalization debates ==

=== Third-country asylum hubs ===
In May 2026, debates emerged among several European governments regarding the compatibility of third-country asylum processing and migrant return hubs with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). During a meeting of European ministers held in [[Chișinău]], Moldova, officials discussed proposals aimed at facilitating the transfer of rejected asylum seekers to third countries pending deportation or further processing.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rankin |first=Jennifer |date=12 May 2026 |title=European ministers discuss offshore hubs for asylum seekers in Moldova |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/may/12/european-ministers-moldova-asylum-seekers-third-country-hubs |access-date=13 May 2026 |work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-16 |title=Council of Europe: Chişinău political declaration on the European Convention on Human Rights - Joint letter |url=https://www.amnesty.eu/news/council-of-europe-chisinau-political-declaration/ |access-date=2026-05-13 |website=European Institutions Office |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=Appendix 5 Joint Political Declaration on Canada-EU Relations |date=1997-12-31 |work=Global Europe |pages=227–230 |url=https://doi.org/10.1515/9781685859633-018 |access-date=2026-05-13 |publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers |isbn=978-1-68585-963-3}}</ref>

The discussions formed part of a broader European trend toward the externalization of migration and asylum procedures, following earlier initiatives such as the [[UK–Rwanda asylum plan]] and the [[Italy–Albania migrant centres]]. According to ''[[The Guardian]]'', ministers and legal officials examined whether existing interpretations of the Convention limited states' ability to implement offshore migration arrangements.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rankin |first=Jennifer |date=12 May 2026 |title=European ministers discuss offshore hubs for asylum seekers in Moldova |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/may/12/european-ministers-moldova-asylum-seekers-third-country-hubs |access-date=13 May 2026 |work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Micinski |first=Nicholas |date=2024-04-22 |title=EU migration overhaul stresses fast-track deportations and limited appeal rights for asylum seekers |url=https://doi.org/10.64628/aai.ejvnwayw7 |access-date=2026-05-13 |website=doi.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tazzioli |first=Martina |date=2026-02-18 |title=The Spatiotemporal Disguises of Asylum |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2026.2628103 |journal=Geopolitics |pages=1–19 |doi=10.1080/14650045.2026.2628103 |issn=1465-0045}}</ref>

The proposals generated criticism from human rights organizations and legal scholars, who argued that offshore processing schemes could undermine protections established under the Convention and international refugee law. Supporters of the measures argued that new mechanisms were necessary to address irregular migration and reduce pressure on national asylum systems.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rankin |first=Jennifer |date=12 May 2026 |title=European ministers discuss offshore hubs for asylum seekers in Moldova |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/may/12/european-ministers-moldova-asylum-seekers-third-country-hubs |access-date=13 May 2026 |work=The Guardian}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Strasbourg Observers]]
* [[Capital punishment in Europe]]
* [[Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]]
* [[European Social Charter]]
* [[Human Rights Act 1998]] for how the convention has been incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom.
* [[Human rights in Europe]]
* [[Territorial scope of European Convention on Human Rights]]
* [[European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003]] Irish Act similar to the British [[Human Rights Act 1998]].
* [[International Institute of Human Rights]]
* [[United Kingdom constitutional law]]
* [[Council of Europe]]
* [[Congress of Europe]]
* [[Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers]]
* [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]
* [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book |title=The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects |first1=Steven|last1=Greer |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-521-60859-6}}
* {{cite book |last1=Mowbray |first1=Alastair |title=Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights |date=2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-957736-1 |language=en}}
* {{cite book |title=Jacobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights |first1=Clare |last1=Ovey |first2=Robin C. A. |last2=White |edition=4th |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-19-928810-6}}
* {{cite book |last1=Schabas |first1=William A. |title=The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary |date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-106676-4 |language=en}}
* {{cite book |title=The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention of Human Rights |first1=Dimitris|last1=Xenos |publisher=Routledge |year=2012 |isbn=978-0-415-66812-5}}
* Kälin W., Künzli J. (2019). The Law of International Human Rights Protection. {{ISBN|978-0-19-882568-5}}.
* David Harris, Michael O'Boyle, Ed Bates, and Carla M. Buckley (2023). ''Harris, O'Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights''. Fifth edition. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-19-886200-0}}.

==External links==
{{Commons category|European Convention on Human Rights}}
* [https://rm.coe.int/1680a2353d Official text of the European Convention on Human Rights]
* [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/home?p_p_id=com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=pop_up&p_p_mode=view&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_groupId=2657384&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_mvcPath=%2Fpreview_article_content.jsp&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_articleId=11781441&_com_liferay_journal_web_portlet_JournalPortlet_version=1.9 Protocols to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]
* [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/#%20 Database of European Human Rights Court (Strasbourg) judgments]
* {{official website|https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention|European Convention of Human Rights official website}}

{{Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights}}
{{International human rights legal instruments}}
{{Hierarchy of norms in French law}}

{{Portal bar|Europe|Law|Politics|1950s}}
{{Authority control}}
<!-- If you wish to add a "Treaties extended to" please include a source -->

{{DEFAULTSORT:European Convention on Human Rights}}
[[Category:European Convention on Human Rights| ]]
[[Category:Human rights instruments]]
[[Category:Council of Europe treaties|Convention on Human Rights]]
[[Category:1950 in Italy]]
[[Category:1950s in Rome]]
[[Category:Anti–death penalty treaties]]
[[Category:Treaties concluded in 1950]]
[[Category:Treaties entered into force in 1953]]
[[Category:Treaties of Albania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Andorra]]
[[Category:Treaties of Armenia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Austria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Azerbaijan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Belgium]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bulgaria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Croatia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cyprus]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Czech Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Denmark]]
[[Category:Treaties of Estonia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Finland]]
[[Category:Treaties of France]]
[[Category:Treaties of Georgia (country)]]
[[Category:Treaties of West Germany]]
[[Category:Treaties of Greece]]
[[Category:Treaties of Hungary]]
[[Category:Treaties of Iceland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ireland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Italy]]
[[Category:Treaties of Latvia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Liechtenstein]]
[[Category:Treaties of Lithuania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Luxembourg]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malta]]
[[Category:Treaties of Moldova]]
[[Category:Treaties of Monaco]]
[[Category:Treaties of Montenegro]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Netherlands]]
[[Category:Treaties of Norway]]
[[Category:Treaties of Poland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Portugal]]
[[Category:Treaties of Romania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Russia]]
[[Category:Treaties of San Marino]]
[[Category:Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro]]
[[Category:Treaties of Slovakia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Slovenia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Spain]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sweden]]
[[Category:Treaties of Switzerland]]
[[Category:Treaties of North Macedonia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Turkey]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ukraine]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Swedish Culture Canon]]