The collective complaints system of the European Social Charter: Interpretative methods of the European Committee of Social Rights

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 61-93

  Cullen, Holly ^a  

^a DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61849151930     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngn042     Document Type: Article

References (268)

1. Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints, CETS 158, adopted 9 November 1995, entered into force 1 July 1998.
2. Churchill and Khaliq, 'The Collective Complaints System of the European Social Charter: An Effective Mechanism for Ensuring Compliance with Economic and Social Rights?', (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 417 and ibid. 'Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The Current Use and Future Potential of the Collective Complaints Mechanism of the European Social Charter', in Baderin and McCorquodale (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Action (Oxford: OUP, 2007) 194
3. Cullen, 'The Collective Complaints Mechanism of the European Social Charter', (2000) 25 European Law Review Human Rights Survey HR/18
4. Sudre, 'Le protocole additionel à la Charte Sociale Européene prévoyant un système de rèclamations collectives', (1996) 100 Revue générale de droit international public 96/3 715
5. and Novitz, "Are Social Rights Necessarily Collective Rights?'A Critical Analysis of the Collective Complaints Protocol to the European Social Charter', (2002) European Human Rights Law Review 50.
6. European Social Charter, CETS No. 35, adopted 18 October 1961.
7. Revised European Social Charter, CETS No. 163, adopted 3 May 1996. There are currently 18 states that have signed but not ratified the Revised ESC, including such large population states as the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, Poland and Germany.
8. See the calendar for submitting reports: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/ monitoring/socialcharter/ReportCalendar/CalendarNRS.en.asp [last accessed 2 December 2008]. For an analysis of the reporting procedure, see Harris and Darcy, The European Social Charter, 2nd edn (NewYork: Transnational Publishers, 2001) at 306-54.
9. Under the version of Article 23 in the 1991 Amending Protocol, the report must also be circulated to NGOs with consultative status with the Council of Europe: See Article 1, Amending Protocol of 1991, CETS No 124. This is one of the provisions that has been operationalised even prior to the coming into force of the Amending Protocol, see Harris and Darcy, supra n. 5 at 15-6.
10. The Council of Europe has designated the following: The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), BUSINESSEUROPE and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE): See http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/ monitoring/socialcharter/OrganisationsEntitled/OrgEntitled.en.asp [last accessed 2 December 2008].
11. A list of non-governmental organisations (INGOs) entitled to submit collective complaints as at 1 July 2008 is available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/OrganisationsEntitled/ INGOList.en.pdf [last accessed 2 December 2008]. Under Article 3 of the Protocol, a complainant NGO must demonstrate particular competence in respect of the subject matter of the complaint. An example of how this issue has been dealt with by the ECSR can be found in Complaint No. 1/ 1998, International Commission of Jurists v Portugal, Admissibility, 10 March 1999 at paras 1 and 9.
12. See discussion in Cullen, supra n. 2 at 22-3. No complaint has ever been held to be inadmissible on the ground of lack of expertise by the complainant organisation.
13. For further discussion of this criterion of admissibility, see Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 205-6.
14. In Complaint No. 9/1999, Confédération Françise d'Encadrement "CFE-CGC" v France, Admissibility, 6 November 2000 at para. 6 and Complaint No. 28/2004,
15. Syndicat national des Dermato-Vénérologues v France, Admissibility,13 June 2005 at para. 5, the ECSR stated that the idea of representativeness is an autonomous concept, and would not be determined by reference to national laws on the subject.
16. See list of declarations in respect of the Protocol at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=158&CM=7&DF=26/10/2005&CL= ENG&VL=1 [last accessed 2 December 2008].
17. Council of Europe, European Committee of Social Rights, Rules adopted during the 201st session on 29 March 2004, and revised during the 207th session on 12 May 2005, at Rule 23, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/ dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/ESCRules/Rules.en.pdf [last accessed 2 December 2008].
18. Complaint No. 36/2006, Frente Comum de Sindicatos da Administracecäo Pública v Portugal, Admissibility, 5 December 2006 at para. 4.
19. Confirmed by the ECSR in Complaint No. 38/2006, European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP) v France, Merits, 3 December 2007 at para. 12.
20. Complaint No. 3/1999, European Federation of Employees in Public Services v Greece, Admissibility, 13 October 1999.
21. Complaint No. 28/2004, supra n. 9 at para. 8.
22. Complaint 29/2005, Syndicat des hauts fonctionnaires (SAIGI) v France Admissibility, 14 June 2005 at para. 8. See Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 210.
23. Article 7, Protocol.
24. Complaint No. 12/2002, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise v Sweden Merits, 15 May 2003.
25. See Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 215.
26. Article 8(3), Protocol. In practice, the ECSR waits until the Committee of Ministers has acted, meaning that some decisions have only been made public six months after the ECSR's decision on the merits: See Complaint No. 33/2006, International Movement ATD Fourth World v France, Merits, 5 December 2007, and Complaint No. 39/2006, European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v France, Merits, 5 December 2007, both published on the Council of Europe website on 3 July 2008. However, in Complaint No. 32/2005, Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria, Confederation of Labour 'Podkrepa' and European Trade Union Confederation v Bulgaria, Merits, 16 October 2006, the decision was published without a Resolution or Recommendation having been adopted by the Committee of Ministers (no such measure has been adopted to date).
27. Collective Complaints Protocol, supra n. 1.
28. Complaint No. 6/1999, Syndicat national des professions du tourisme v France, Merits, 10 October 2000 with Recommendation ResChS (2001)1.
29. Article 10.
30. See also, Novitz, supra n. 2 at 53-4.
31. Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 22 at paras 52-3.
32. A list of NGOs recognised by the Council of Europe is available at: http://www.coe.int/t/e/ngo/public/participatory.status/list.of.ngos/ liste.des.OING.2008.internet.asp#TopOfPage [last accessed 2 December 2008].
33. For NGO's entitled to submit collective complaints, see: List of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) entitled to submit collective complaints as at 1 July 2008, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/OrganisationsEntitled/ INGOList.en.pdf [last accessed 2 December 2008]. See also Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 202.
34. See Novitz, supra n. 2 at 54-6.
35. Merits, 11 December 2001 at para. 58.
36. Merits, 7 February 2005 at para. 57.
37. Merits, 30 November 2004 at para. 80.
38. Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 216-17.
39. The strict interpretation of Article 9 has been advocated by Harris and Darcy, supra n. 5 at 365-7.
40. See Sudre, supra n. 2 at 737
41. Cullen, supra n. 2 at HR/27
42. and Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 218. On the content of resolutions of the Committee of Ministers, see Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 223-7.
43. See list of collective complaints and state of procedure, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Complaints/ Complaints.en.asp [last accessed 1 December 2008].
44. Complaint No. 37/2006, European Council of Police Trade Unions (CESP) v Portugal, Merits, 3 December 2007, and Complaint No. 36/2006, supra n. 12, where overtime pay is in issue in both cases, although additional issues are raised in Complaint No. 37/2006.
45. Complaint No. 32/2005, supra n. 20.
46. The entirely unsuccessful complaints mostly related to Articles 5 and 6 ESC: Complaint No. 2/1999, European Federation of Employees in the Public Services v France, Merits, 4 December 2000, plus two other complaints against other states parties on the same issues; Complaint No. 11/2001, European Council of Police Trade Unions v Portugal, Merits, 21 May 2002; Complaint No. 23/2003, [ Syndicat occitan de l'éducation v France, Merits, 7 September 2004; Complaint No. 25/2004, Centrale générale des services publics (CGSP) v Belgium Merits,9 May 2005; and Complaint No. 26/2004, Syndicat des Agrégés de l'Enseignement Supérieur (SAGES) v France, Merits, 15 June 2005. There have also been two unsuccessful complaints under Article 17 Revised ESC concerning legal protection of children from corporal punishment, see Complaint No. 19/2003, OMCT v Italy and Complaint No. 20/2003, OMCT v Portugal, Merits, 26 January 2005; one on Article 4 ESC concerning pay, see: Complaint No. 37/2006, supra n. 39; and one on the rights of elderly persons to free public transport under Articles 12, 23 and E Revised ESC. See: Complaint No. 42/2007, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues v Ireland, Merits, 3 June 2008.
47. While the numbering of Articles has remained the same between the ESC and Revised ESC there are sometimes significant differences in content. For example, the original version of Article 17 ESC concerns the rights of mothers and children to protection, whereas Article 17 Revised ESC concerns solely the rights of the child, but in a broader sense.
48. There is no equivalent to Article E Revised ESC, concerning the principle of nondiscrimination, in the 1961 ESC, which only mentions non-discrimination in the Preamble. Article 1 of the 1988 Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter, CETS No. 128, entered into force 4 September 1992, with 13 states parties, prohibits sex discrimination only.
49. Supra n. 18.
50. Supra n. 20.
51. Complaint No. 17/2003, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Greece, Merits,7 December 2004; Complaint No. 18/2003, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Ireland, Merits, 7 December 2004; Complaint No. 19/2003, supra n. 37; Complaint No. 20/2003, supra n. 37; Complaint No. 21/2003, World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Belgium, Merits, 7 December 2004; and Complaint No. 34/ 2006,World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) v Portugal, Merits, 5 December 2006.
52. See Cullen, 'Is the European Social Charter a Charter for Children?' (2005) 50 Irish Jurist 60.
53. Complaint No. 9/2000, supra n. 30; Complaint No. 16/2003, supra n. 32; and Complaint No. 22/2003, Confédération générale du travail (CGT) v France, Merits, 7 December 2004.
54. Supra n. 18 at paras 42-3.
55. Cullen,The Role of International Law in the Elimination of Child Labor (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007) at 160-1.
56. Cullen, supra n. 2 at 27
57. Sudre, supra n. 2 at 737
58. and Churchill and Khaliq, supra n. 2 at 218-9.
59. Supra n. 30 at para. 20.
60. Ibid. at para. 21. This reiterates para. 46 of the Explanatory Report to the Protocol: Council of Europe, Explanatory Report on the Collective Complaints Protocol (1995), available at: http://conventions.coe.int/ Treaty/en/Reports/Html/158.htm [last accessed 2 December 2008] at para. 46.
61. The ECSR also emphasised its exclusive competence in Complaint No. 18/ 2003, supra n. 42 at para. 59.
62. See, generally, Harris and Darcy, supra n. 5 at chapter 2.
63. Merits, 12 December 2002 at para 23.
64. For a defence of the ECSR's interpretation, see Darcy, 'Forced Labour in Greece', (2002) 27 European Law Review 218 at 222-3.
65. Complaint No. 17/2003, supra n. 42; Complaint No. 18/2003, supra n. 42; Complaint No. 19/2003, supra n. 37; Complaint No. 20/2003, supra n. 37; and Complaint No. 21/2003, supra n. 42. The dissenting opinions are discussed in Cullen, supra n. 42 at 77 and 79. See also Complaint No. 34/ 2006, supra n. 42.
66. Merits, 18 October 2006 at paras 14, 16, 26, 34-7, 40-1 and 51-4.
67. Complaint No. 27/2004, European Roma Rights Centre v Italy, Merits, 7 December 2005, and Complaint No. 15/2003, European Roma Rights Centre v Greece, supra n.31.
68. Merits, 4 November 2003.
69. This decision was also cited in Complaint No. 15/2003, supra n. 29 at para. 21; Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 60-1 and 67; and Complaint No. 39/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 57-8 and 63.
70. Merits, 9 September 1999. This decision has been cited six subsequent cases: Complaint No. 6/1999, Syndicat national des professions de tourisme v France, Merits, 10 October 2000, at para. 76; Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56 at para. 53; Complaint No. 16/2003, supra n. 30 at para. 76; Complaint No. 30/2005, Marangopolous Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) v Greece, Merits, 6 December 2006 at paras 194, 203 and 288; Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at para. 59; and Complaint No. 39/2006, supra n. 20 at para. 55.
71. One example is its taking into account of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Keegan v Ireland (1994) 18 EHRR 342 in its review of Ireland's implementation of the ESC: See Cullen, supra n. 42 at 72.
72. Wilson v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 523 at paras 30-3.
73. See also the later case of ASLEF v United Kingdom (2007) 45 EHRR 34 at paras 22-4 and 39, where Article 5 ESC was cited in support of an interpretation of Article 11 ECHR which gave unions the right to control their membership policies without state interference, and commentary by Ewing, 'The Implications of the ASLEF Case', (2007) 36 Industrial LawJournal 425.
74. Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56 at para. 52.
75. Complaint No. 17/2003, supra n. 42
76. Complaint No. 18/2003, supra n. 42
77. Complaint No. 19/2003, supra n. 40
78. Complaint No. 20/2003, supra n. 37
79. Complaint No. 21/2003, supra n. 42 and
80. Complaint No. 34/2006, supra n. 42.
81. (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1.
82. (1982) 4 EHRR 293.
83. (1998) 27 EHRR 611.
84. Supra n. 58 at para. 196, citing Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Manual on human rights and the environment - Principles emerging from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2006).
85. Merits, 8 September 2004 at para. 27.
86. Supra n. 42 at para. 60. On the meaning of the teleological approach in the context of the ECHR, see Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (Cambridge: CUP, 2006) at 195-7. For the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights itself, see Golder v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 524 at para. 34.
87. (2001) 31 EHRR 411.
88. Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56 at para. 52.
89. (2005) 40 EHRR 9.
90. Supra n. 29 at para. 20.
91. (2005) 40 EHRR 1030.
92. Supra n. 54 at para. 35. The ECSR cited at para. 37, the ECHR decision of Hatton v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 611 on a similar point that while states are in the best position to evaluate the adequacy of measures taken to address a human rights issue, state discretion is limited by principles such as reasonableness. The ECSR refers at para. 54 to the ECHR decision in Öneryldiz v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 325 concerning the scope of states' positive obligations.
93. See Complaint No.17/2003, supra n. 42
94. Complaint No.18/2003, supra n. 42
95. Complaint No.19/2003, supra n. 37
96. Complaint No. 20/2003, supra n. 37
97. Complaint No. 21/2003, supra n. 42
98. and Complaint No. 34/2006, supra n. 42, citing A. v United Kingdom supra n. 68.
99. See Cullen, supra n. 42 at 76.
100. (1996) 22 EHRR 409. This case was cited earlier by a dissenting member of the ECSR in Complaint No. 12/2002, supra n. 18.
101. Merits, 16 October 2007 at para. 29.
102. Complaint No. 2/1999, supra n. 37
103. Complaint No. 3/1999, supra n. 14
104. Complaint No. 4/1999, supra n. 37
105. Merits, 4 December 2000
106. Complaint No. 5/1999, European Federation of Employees in the Public Services v Portugal, Merits, 4 December 2000
107. Complaint No. 11/2001, European Council of Police Trade Unions v Portugal, Complaint No. 37/2006, supra n. 37
108. and Complaint No. 38/2006, supra n. 13. Article 5 allows states to prohibit the right to organise for members of the armed forces.
109. In Complaint No. 11/2000, supra n. 37, the right to organise and to bargain collectively had been restricted and the restrictions were found to be within the margin of appreciation. It is worth contrasting this decision with that of the ECSR in Complaint No. 32/2005, supra n. 20, where the situation was found not to be in conformity with the Revised ESC.
110. (1979-80) 1 EHRR 578.
111. (1981) 4 EHRR 38.
112. Merits, 5 December 2000 at para 8.
113. (1983) 6 EHRR 163.
114. Supra n. 51. See, for example, Spoöttl vAustria (1996) 22 EHRR CD88
115. Tsirlis v Greece (1997) 25 EHRR 198, (concerning the related issue of exemption of ministers of religion from conscription), discussed in Cullen, 'The Emerging Scope of Freedom of Conscience', (1997) 22 European Law Review Human Rights Survey HR/32.
116. Supra n. 58 at paras 32-8.
117. Notably, Complaint No. 1/1998, ibid. at paras 34-8
118. Complaint No. 30/2005, supra n. 58 at paras 208-20, 227
119. Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at paras 38 and 42
120. Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 91-2
121. Complaint No. 39/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 129-30.; and Complaint No 41/ 2007, Mental Disability Advocacy Center v Bulgaria, Merits, 3 June 2008 at para. 38.
122. Complaint No. 1/1998, supra n. 10 at paras 10-3.
123. For example, see Complaint No. 10/2000, STTK ry and Tehy ry v Finland Merits, 17 October 2001 at para. 22, where the ECSR stated that the Collective Complaint Procedure allowed it to look at issues of how radiation affected workers in a particular sector in detail, whereas it could only examine the issue more generally in the reporting process.
124. See, for example, Complaint No. 12/2002, supra n. 18 at para. 43.
125. Supra n. 67 at para. 27.
126. See Novitz, supra n. 2.
127. See, for example, Gearty, Principles of Human Rights Adjudication (Oxford: OUP, 2004) at 84, n 1.
128. Liebenberg, 'The Value of Human Dignity in Interpreting Socio-Economic Rights', (2005) 21 South African Journal of Human Rights 1.
129. 9.
130. Supra n. 81.
131. Supra n. 51.
132. Supra n. 81 at para. 17.
133. Supra n. 51 at para. 23.
134. Complaint No. 14/2003, supra n. 68 at para. 31.
135. Supra n. 55 at para. 41.
136. This point was repeated in Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at paras 51 and 56
137. Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 77 and 150
138. and Complaint No. 39/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 87 and 162-7.
139. Supra n. 56 at para. 48.
140. Complaint No. 14/2003, supra n. 67 at para. 31.
141. Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at para. 163.
142. Supra n. 42.
143. Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56 at para. 52.
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid. at paras 51-52, citing Thlimmenos v Greece, supra n.69.
146. See, ibid. at paras 51-3
147. Complaint No. 27/2004, supra n. 55 at para. 20
148. and Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at para. 35.
149. Ibid. at para. 21.
150. Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56 at para. 51.
151. Supra n. 55 at para. 18.
152. Ibid. at para. 24,
153. citing its previous decisions in Complaint No. 15/2003, supra n. 29 and Complaint No. 17/2003, supra n. 42.
154. See also Complaint No. 41/2007, supra n. 85 at para. 52.
155. Supra n. 55 at para. 21.
156. See also Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 149-4.
157. Note, however, that the ECSR stated in Complaint No. 33/2006, ibid. at para.59, that Article 31 Revised ESC on its own does not imply obligations of result.
158. See MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989) and Women's Lives, Men's Laws (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005),
159. and see Gilbert and Majury, 'Critical Comparisons: The Supreme Court of Canada Dooms Section 15', (2006) 24 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 111, criticising the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to implement substantive equality in its interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
160. Supra n. 54 at paras 40-1.
161. See, in the Canadian context, Gilbert and Majury, supra n. 115, and Réaume, 'Law v Canada (Ministry of Employment and Immigration ' (2006) 18 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 143.
162. Supra n. 20 at paras 159-1.
163. Fredman, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford: OUP, 2008) at 17-8.
164. It also used the term 'equal citizenship' to suggest solidarity in Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56 at para. 48
165. Complaint No. 15/2003, supra n. 29 at para. 19.
166. Complaint No. 27/2004, supra n. 55 at para. 18.
167. Complaint No. 15/2003, supra n. 29 at para. 20. On the link between solidarity and equality, focussing on the idea of vulnerability,
168. see also Complaint No. 41/2007, supra n. 85 at para. 39.
169. Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 164-8.
170. Ibid. at para. 67.
171. Ibid. at para. 130.
172. A good example of this type of reasoning may be found in the South African Constitutional Court decision in Soobramoney v Minister of Health, Kwa-Zulu-Natal (1998) 4 BHRC 308, where an individual's claim that his right to health care was violated because of the refusal of a hospital to give him a particular treatment was rejected in part because of the need for the public authorities to balance the needs of all persons needing health care.
173. Supra n. 37 at para. 40.
174. The ECSR, at para. 41 also invoked the prerogative of sovereign states to set their own constitutional processes for legislative drafting.
175. Greer, supra n. 68 at 203-13 and 227.
176. See also McHarg, 'Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights', (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 671.
177. Dennis and Stewart, 'Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Should There Be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Rights to Food, Water, Housing and Health?', (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 462.
178. Ibid.
179. First developed by Shue, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). This framework is commonly used in discussions of a range of human rights contexts, notably the Committee of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in the South African Constitution, Section 7(2).
180. Supra n. 58.
181. Supra n. 54 at paras 38 and 42.
182. Supra n. 20 at para. 83.
183. Supra n. 20 at paras 90-3.
184. Complaint No. 25/2004, supra n. 37 at para. 41.
185. Supra n. 54 at para. 35,
186. citing Ilascu v Moldova and Russia (2005) 40 EHRR 1030 and Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56.
187. Supra n. 29 at para. 29, where the ECSR also indicated that states would continue to be responsible where they delegated responsibility for implementation to the social partners.
188. See also Complaint No. 12/2002, supra n. 18 at para. 28
189. and Complaint No. 30/2005, supra n. 62 at para. 238 (asserting state responsibility even where obligations were implemented through collective agreements).
190. Complaint No. 27/2004, supra n. 55 at para. 21.
191. Ibid. para. 23.
192. Ibid. paras 24, 36 and 46.
193. Ibid. para. 26.
194. Ibid. para. 36.
195. See Section 5.B, supra n. 98-104.
196. See Complaint No. 6/1999, supra n 22 at para. 25
197. and Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at para. 40.
198. Complaint No. 23/2003, supra n. 37 at para. 26.
199. See Complaint No. 8/2000, supra n. 51 at paras 23-4
200. and Complaint No. 30/2005, supra n. 58 at para. 221.
201. Supra n. 54 at para. 37.
202. Complaint No. 32/2005, supra n. 20 at paras 27, 37 and 46.
203. Complaint No. 9/2000, supra n. 28 at paras 29-31.
204. Supra n. 56 at para. 53.
205. See also Complaint No. 30/2005, supra n. 58 at para. 204
206. Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at para. 37
207. and Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at para. 62.
208. An attempt to use Article I as the basis for a violation was rejected on the ground that it is an interpretative principle not a right: Complaint No. 26/2004, supra n. 37 at para. 32.
209. Supra n. 58 at paras 35-6.
210. Supra n. 22 at para. 47.
211. See, for example, Complaint No. 9/2000, supra n. 28 at para. 26.
212. Complaint No. 6/1999, supra n. 22 at para. 25.
213. Supra n. 58 at para. 198.
214. Supra, n. 20 at paras 26, 34 and 45.
215. Ibid. and para. 36.
216. Ibid. at para. 35.
217. Complaint No.17/2003, supra n. 42 at para. 32.
218. Some dissenting members of the ECSR took an even stricter view of what legislation to protect children should include: See the concurring opinion of Mr Belorgey in Complaint No. 17/2003, and the dissenting opinion of Mr Mikkola in Complaint No 19/2003, supra n. 46.
219. Note also the follow-up case in respect of Portugal, Complaint No. 34/ 2006, supra n. 46 at paras 19-22, where the ECSR effectively reversed its previous decision that the combination of legislation and judicial interpretations in Portugal provided sufficient protection, following a new decision of the Portuguese Supreme Court.
220. Supra n. 37 at para. 26.
221. See definition of 'necessary' in Silver v United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR 347, at para. 97.
222. Greer, supra n. 68 at 217.
223. Ibid. at 218.
224. See for example, The Observer and the Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153, at para. 71.
225. See, in particular, Complaint No. 6/1999, supra n. 22 at para. 39
226. and Complaint No. 32/2005, supra n. 20 at paras 27, 37 and 46.
227. However, in Complaint No. 35/2006, supra n. 77 at para. 31, the ECSR found that the restrictions on collective bargaining were proportionate: 'the complainant has not demonstrated that the substance of the right is compromised, nor is freedom of association affected more than necessary for the effectiveness and coherence of a system of collective bargaining.'
228. Complaint No. 7/2000, supra n. 83 at para. 21
229. Complaint No. 8/2000, supra n. 51 at para. 25
230. and Complaint No. 9/2000, supra n. 28 at para. 31.
231. Supra n. 18 at paras 40-2.
232. Supra n. 20 at paras 164-8.
233. Supra n. 54 at para. 55.
234. See Higgins, 'Derogations under Human Rights Treaties', (1976/77) 48 British Yearbook of International Law 281.
235. Ovey andWhite, Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th edn (Oxford: OUP, 2006) at 53, describe the margin of appreciation as 'the outer limits of schemes of protection which are acceptable under the Convention'.
236. Greer, supra n. 68 at 222, describes it as 'the room for manoeuvre the Strasbourg institutions are prepared to accord national authorities in fulfilling their Convention obligations'.
237. However, as Greer, supra n. 68 at 222, notes, the term was used by the European Commission of Human Rights as early as 1958.
238. (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737 at paras 48-9.
239. This approach goes back to the Handyside case, ibid.
240. Supra n. 51 at para. 24.
241. Supra n. 58 at para. 221.
242. Supra n. 37 at paras 38-9.
243. Supra n. 35 at paras 22 and 39.
244. Supra n. 51.
245. Supra n. 18. The dissenting members were Mr Grillberger and Mr Mikkola.
246. Supra n. 58 at para. 221.
247. See also Complaint No. 8/2000, supra n. 5 at para. 24
248. Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at paras 35 and 54
249. and Complaint No. 41/2007, supra n. 85 at para 39.
250. Complaint No. 10/2000, supra n. 87, does not refer explicitly to the margin of appreciation, but at para. 20 uses similar language.
251. Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at para. 35.
252. See para. 37 where, citing Hatton v United Kingdom, supra n. 74, the ECSR asserted that national authorities are in the best position to evaluate the needs of their own state.
253. See also Complaint No. 10/2000, supra n. 87 at para. 20.
254. Dennis and Stewart, supra n. 130.
255. Fredman, supra n. 119.
256. The decision on this point was cited by the ECSR in several subsequent cases, see Complaint No. 27/2004, supra n. 55
257. Complaint No. 31/2005, supra n. 54 at para. 4
258. Complaint No. 33/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 61-2
259. and Complaint No. 39/2006, supra n. 20 at paras 57-8.
260. Supra n. 56 at para. 53.
261. Ibid. para. 54.
262. Supra n. 54 at para. 37.
263. See also Complaint No. 41/2007, supra n. 85 at paras 39 and 47.
264. Supra n. 58 at para. 204,
265. citing Complaint No. 13/2002, supra n. 56.
266. Supra n. 56 at para. 54.
267. Supra n. 35 at para. 14.
268. Including in the United Kingdom, see the Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, HL Paper 165-I, HC 150-I, 10 August 2008 at 43-56.