An Assessment on Limitations and Restrictions of the Fundamental Rights in Strasbourg Legal Order

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 537 - 583, 30.09.2025

Murat Tümay

https://doi.org/10.58733/imhfd.1666842

Abstract

Tüm insan hakları ve temel özgürlükler, hiç kimsenin, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi (AİHM) kapsamında tanınan hak ve özgürlüklerin yok edilmesine yönelik herhangi bir faaliyet veya eylemde bulunma hakkı bulunmamak kaydıyla genel kural çerçevesine tabidir. Belirli durumlarda, bireysel haklara toplumun daha geniş çıkarlarını korumak amacıyla sınırlamalar getirilmesi meşru olabilir. Kamu yararı, bu tür sınırlamaları haklı çıkarabilir, böylece kamu düzeni, ulusal güvenlik ve AİHM’de tanınan diğer meşru amaçlar korunabilir. Bu sınırlamaların amacı, toplumun moral ve demokratik değerlerini korumaktır.
Bu sınırlamalar, AİHM bağlamında “kabul edilebilir sınırlamalar” veya “kısıtlamalar” olarak adlandırılır. Her hak, kendi ilgili maddesinde tanımlanır ve sınırlamalarını haklı kılacak koşulları belirtir. Sınırlamaların dayandığı gerekçeler, makul bir şekilde temellendirilmeli, hukuka uygun olmalı ve takip edilen meşru amacı sağlamak için orantılı olmalıdır. Önemli bir şekilde, bu sınırlamalar uygun yasal prosedürlerle oluşturulmalı ve kamuya açık, şeffaf ve anlaşılır bir şekilde sunulmalıdır.
Bu yaklaşım, bireysel özgürlüklerle toplumun haklı talepleri arasında hassas bir dengeyi yansıtarak, hükümetin etkin işleyişini sağlarken temel hakların korunmasını güvence altına alır. Mahkemeler, özellikle Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), bu sınırlamaların demokratik bir toplumda gerekli olup olmadığını belirlemede kritik bir rol oynar, böylece sınırlamaların ilgili hakkın özünü zedelemediğinden emin olurlar.

Keywords

Key Words: Restriction of Rights , European Court of Human Rights , Fundamental Rights , Public Value , Private Value

An Assessment on Limitations and Restrictions of the Fundamental Rights in Strasbourg Legal Order

Abstract

All human rights and fundamental freedoms are subject to the general rule that no one has the right to engage in activities or perform acts that aim to destroy any of the rights and freedoms recognized under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In certain cases, it is legitimate to impose restrictions on individual rights to protect the broader societal interests and the rights of others. The common good may justify such restrictions to ensure public order, national security, or other legitimate aims as recognized in the ECHR. The aim of these restrictions is to preserve the moral and democratic values of society and the rights and freedoms of others.
These limitations are referred to as “permissible limitations” or “restrictions” within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights. Each right is defined within its respective article, alongside the conditions that justify its limitation. The grounds for restriction must be reasonably based, lawful, and proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. Importantly, these limitations must be created through proper legal procedures and must be clearly accessible, transparent, and understandable to the public.
This approach reflects the delicate balance between individual freedoms and the just demands of society, ensuring the effective operation of government while safeguarding fundamental rights. Courts, particularly the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), play a critical role in determining whether these restrictions are necessary in a democratic society, ensuring that they do not undermine the essence of the right being limited.

Keywords

Restriction of Rights , European Court of Human Rights , Fundamental Rights , Public Value , Private Value

References

• Atar Y, Türk Anayasa Hukuku (Seçkin Yayınları 2018).
• Barendt E., Freedom of Speech, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1985).
• Cameron I., National Security and the European Convention on Human Rights, (The Hague-London-Boston: Kluwer Law International 2000)
• Clayton, R., Tomlinson, H., The Law of Human Rights, (Oxford Univ. Press 2000)
• Council of Europe, Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Freedom of Expression, 2021.
• Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights Annual Report 2022, Strasbourg.
• Delmas-Marty M, The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights International Protection versus National Restrictions, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992).
• Eren A, Anayasa Hukuku Ders Notları (On İki Levha Yayınları 2018).
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Barfod v. Denmark, Judgement of 22 February 1989, Series A No. 149; (1991) 13 EHRR 493.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Barthold v. Germany, App. No. 8734/79, Judgment of 25 March 1985.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ceylan v. Turkey, App. No. 23556/94, Judgment of 8 July 1999.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, Judgement of 18 June 1971 , Series A No.12 (1979-80) 1 EHRR.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Darby v. Sweden, Judgement of 23 October 1990, series A No 187; (1991) 13 EHRR 774.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 22 October 1981, Series A No.45; (1982) 4 EHRR 149.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Funke and Others v. France, Judgement of 25 February 1993, Series A No. 256-A, (1993).
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Gaskin v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 7 July 1989, Series A No. 160; (1990) 12 EHRR 36.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Gorzelik and Others v. Poland, App. No. 44158/98, Judgment of 17 February 2004.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, Judgment of 7 December 1976.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Kalac v. Turkey, Judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997- IV; (1999) 27 EHRR 552.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) , Klass v. Germany, Judgement of 6 September 1978, Series A No.28; (1979-80) 2 EHRR 214.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, App. No. 44774/98, Judgment of 10 November 2005.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Malone v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 2 August 1984, Series A No.82 ; (1985) 7 EHRR 14.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Oberschlick v. Austria, Judgement of 23 May 1991, Series A No.204; (1994) 19 EHRR 389.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, App. No. 13585/88, Judgment of 26 November 1991.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Judgement of 29 October 1992, Series A No.246; (1993) 15 EHRR 244.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Otto-Preminger Institute v. Germany, Judgement of 20 September 1994, Series A No. 295-A; (1995) 19 EHRR 34.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Perinçek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Judgment of 15 October 2015.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Purcell v. Ireland , Decision of the Commission 70 DR 262 (1989).
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) v. Turkey, (41340/98), Grand Chamber Judgment of 13 February 2003, (2003) 37 EHRR 1.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Silver and Others v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 5947/72 et al., Judgment of 25 March 1983.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 1), App. No. 6538/74, Judgment of 26 April 1979.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Surek and Ozdemir v. Turkey, (Apps 23927/94 and 24277/94), Judgement of 8 July 1999.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 30 January 1998.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Weber v. Switzerland, Judgement of 22 May 1990, Series A, No.177;(1990) 12 EHRR 508.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Vogt v. Germany, (Appl.17851/91), Judgement of 26 September 1995, (1996) 21.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 13 August 1981, Series A No.44 (1989) 11.
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953.
• Evliyaoğlu SA, “Geçmişten Günümüze Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Cumhuriyetin Laik Devlet Niteliğine İlişkin Yorumu” (2023) 40/1 Anayasa Yargısı, 134-137.
• Göçgün M, “Yüksek Öğretim Kurumlarında Uygulanan Başörtüsü Yasağı: Hukuki Süreç ve Mevcut Durum” (2023) 5/1 Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 314-328.
• Görgen N, Türkiye’de Devlet Başkanlığı Makamının Gelişimi Hakkında Bir Çalışma, 1961–2017 (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2024).
• Görgen N, “The Evolution of the British Executive: Cabinet, Prime Minister and Core Executive Model” (2024) 30 Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 155.
• Görgen N, “The Weakening of Judicial Independence Through the Transition From the Judicialization of Politics to the Politicization of the Judiciary” in Nauman Reayat, Rhona KM Smith and Moohyung Cho, Judicial Independence in Transitional Democracies (1st ed., Routledge 2024).
• Greer, S., Public Interests and Human Rights in the European Convention on Human Rights, (Council of Europe Publication, (Strasbourg 1995).
• Greer S., Exceptions to Articles 8-11 of European Convention on Human Rights, (Council of Europe: 1997).
• Gomien, D., Harris, D.,and Zwaak, L., Law and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, (Council of Europe 1996).
• Harris, D. J., O'Boyle, M., Bates, E. & Buckley, C. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2014)
• Hovius B, “ The Limitation Clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms and section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Comparative Analysis” in (1986) 6 YEL.
• Lavender, N., The Problem of the Margin of Appreciation (1997) EHRLR.
• Leach, P., Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, (London 2001).
• Letsas, G. A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. (Oxford University Press 2007)
• Loucaides, L.G, “Restrictions or limitations on the Rights Guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights” in (1993) 4 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 334.
• Nicol, A., “National Security Considerations and The Limits of European Supervision” (1996) EHRLR.
• Mahoney, P., Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin (1990) HRLJ.
• MacDonald, Matscher and Petzold (eds) The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, (Martinus Nijhoff 1993).
• Mowbray, A. (2012). Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2012).
• Mowbray, A., Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, (Oxford University Press 2004).
• Robertson, A.H, Merrills, J.G, Human Rights in Europe, (3rd ed., Manchaster University Press 1996).
• Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Annex, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985.
• Travaux Préparatoires”: Official Report of the Consultative Assembly, 1949, pp. 1235-1239.
• Tumay, M., “Muhalefet serhi gerekceleri AIHM kararini curutuyor” in Yeni Asya (daily), 22.11.2005.
• Turkish Constitutional Court, Esra Nur Özbey, Appl. No. 2013/7443, Judgment of 20 May 2015.
• Turkish Constitutional Court, Sara Akgül, App. No. 2015/269, Plenary Assembly Judgement of 22 November 2018.
• Turkish Constitutional Court, Tuğba Arslan, App. No. 2014/256, Plenary Assembly Judgement of 25 June 2014.
• Ustabulut B, ABD ve Türkiye’de Yasama ve Yürütme Fonksiyonları Çerçevesinde Yürütmenin Düzenleyici İşlem Yapma Yetkisi (Adalet Yayınları 2023).
• White, R.C. and Ovey, C; Jacobs and White European Convention on Human Rights, (3rd ed., Clarendon Press 2002),
• Van Dijk, P., Van Hoof, F., Van Rijn, A. & Zwaak, L. Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed., Intersentia, 2006).