• Skip to main navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Français

Codification Division Publications: Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs

  • Article 100
  • Article 101
  • Article 102
  • Article 103
  • Articles 104 and 105
  • Article 105
  • Article 106
  • Article 107
  • Articles 108 and 109
  • Article 109
  • Article 110
  • Article 111
  • Search the Entire Collection
  • Reports of the Secretary-General
  • Codification Division

Charter of the United Nations

Chapter viii — regional arrangements.

“ 1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of the Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter. ”

* Advance version in English

UN logo

Search the United Nations

  • Member States

Main Bodies

  • Secretary-General
  • Secretariat
  • Emblem and Flag
  • ICJ Statute
  • Nobel Peace Prize
  • Peace and Security
  • Human Rights
  • Humanitarian Aid
  • Sustainable Development and Climate
  • International Law
  • Global Issues
  • Official Languages
  • Observances
  • Events and News
  • Get Involved
  • Israel-Gaza Crisis

United Nations Charter (full text)

We the peoples of the united nations determined.

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

  • To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  • To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  • To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  • To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

  • The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
  • All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
  • All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  • All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
  • All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
  • The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
  • Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Chapter II: Membership

The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.

  • Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
  • The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Chapter III: Organs

  • There are established as principal organs of the United Nations: a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat.
  • Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present Charter.

The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

Chapter IV: The General Assembly

Composition.

  • The General Assembly shall consist of all the Members of the United Nations.
  • Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.

FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.

  • The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.
  • The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.
  • The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.
  • The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article 10.
  • While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.
  • The Secretary-General, with the consent of the Security Council, shall notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security which are being dealt with by the Security Council and shall similarly notify the General Assembly, or the Members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session, immediately the Security Council ceases to deal with such matters.
  • promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification;
  • promoting international co-operation in the economic, social, cultural, educational, and health fields, and assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
  • The further responsibilities, functions and powers of the General Assembly with respect to matters mentioned in paragraph 1 (b) above are set forth in Chapters IX and X.

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

  • The General Assembly shall receive and consider annual and special reports from the Security Council; these reports shall include an account of the measures that the Security Council has decided upon or taken to maintain international peace and security.
  • The General Assembly shall receive and consider reports from the other organs of the United Nations.

The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the international trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of the trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic.

  • The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization.
  • The expenses of the Organization shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly.
  • The General Assembly shall consider and approve any financial and budgetary arrangements with specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 and shall examine the administrative budgets of such specialized agencies with a view to making recommendations to the agencies concerned.
  • Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.
  • Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) of Article 86, the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.
  • Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

The General Assembly shall meet in regular annual sessions and in such special sessions as occasion may require. Special sessions shall be convoked by the Secretary-General at the request of the Security Council or of a majority of the Members of the United Nations.

The General Assembly shall adopt its own rules of procedure. It shall elect its President for each session.

The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

Chapter V: The Security Council

  • The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
  • The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
  • Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.
  • In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
  • In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
  • The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.

  • Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
  • Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
  • Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
  • The Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. Each member of the Security Council shall for this purpose be represented at all times at the seat of the Organization.
  • The Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members may, if it so desires, be represented by a member of the government or by some other specially designated representative.
  • The Security Council may hold meetings at such places other than the seat of the Organization as in its judgment will best facilitate its work.

The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

The Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President.

Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected.

Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of Disputes

  • The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  • The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

  • Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
  • A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.
  • The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.
  • The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
  • The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
  • In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
  • Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
  • If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of the dispute.

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

  • All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
  • Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
  • The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

  • There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
  • The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
  • The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
  • The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
  • The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
  • Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Chapter VIII: Regional Arrangements

  • Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
  • The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.
  • The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.
  • This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35.
  • The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
  • The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

The Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Chapter IX: International Economic and Social Cooperation

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

  • higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
  • solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
  • universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.

  • The various specialized agencies, established by intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields, shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63.
  • Such agencies thus brought into relationship with the United Nations are hereinafter referred to as specialized agencies.

The Organization shall make recommendations for the co-ordination of the policies and activities of the specialized agencies.

The Organization shall, where appropriate, initiate negotiations among the states concerned for the creation of any new specialized agencies required for the accomplishment of the purposes set forth in Article 55.

Responsibility for the discharge of the functions of the Organization set forth in this Chapter shall be vested in the General Assembly and, under the authority of the General Assembly, in the Economic and Social Council, which shall have for this purpose the powers set forth in Chapter X.

Chapter X: The Economic and Social Council

  • The Economic and Social Council shall consist of fifty-four Members of the United Nations elected by the General Assembly.
  • Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, eighteen members of the Economic and Social Council shall be elected each year for a term of three years. A retiring member shall be eligible for immediate re-election.
  • At the first election after the increase in the membership of the Economic and Social Council from twenty-seven to fifty-four members, in addition to the members elected in place of the nine members whose term of office expires at the end of that year, twenty-seven additional members shall be elected. Of these twenty-seven additional members, the term of office of nine members so elected shall expire at the end of one year, and of nine other members at the end of two years, in accordance with arrangements made by the General Assembly.
  • Each member of the Economic and Social Council shall have one representative.
  • The Economic and Social Council may make or initiate studies and reports with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related matters and may make recommendations with respect to any such matters to the General Assembly to the Members of the United Nations, and to the specialized agencies concerned.
  • It may make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
  • It may prepare draft conventions for submission to the General Assembly, with respect to matters falling within its competence.
  • It may call, in accordance with the rules prescribed by the United Nations, international conferences on matters falling within its competence.
  • The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly.
  • It may co-ordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members of the United Nations.
  • The Economic and Social Council may take appropriate steps to obtain regular reports from the specialized agencies. It may make arrangements with the Members of the United Nations and with the specialized agencies to obtain reports on the steps taken to give effect to its own recommendations and to recommendations on matters falling within its competence made by the General Assembly.
  • It may communicate its observations on these reports to the General Assembly.

The Economic and Social Council may furnish information to the Security Council and shall assist the Security Council upon its request.

  • The Economic and Social Council shall perform such functions as fall within its competence in connection with the carrying out of the recommendations of the General Assembly.
  • It may, with the approval of the General Assembly, perform services at the request of Members of the United Nations and at the request of specialized agencies.
  • It shall perform such other functions as are specified elsewhere in the present Charter or as may be assigned to it by the General Assembly.
  • Each member of the Economic and Social Council shall have one vote.
  • Decisions of the Economic and Social Council shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

The Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights, and such other commissions as may be required for the performance of its functions.

The Economic and Social Council shall invite any Member of the United Nations to participate, without vote, in its deliberations on any matter of particular concern to that Member.

The Economic and Social Council may make arrangements for representatives of the specialized agencies to participate, without vote, in its deliberations and in those of the commissions established by it, and for its representatives to participate in the deliberations of the specialized agencies.

The Economic and Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned.

  • The Economic and Social Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President.
  • The Economic and Social Council shall meet as required in accordance with its rules, which shall include provision for the convening of meetings on the request of a majority of its members.

Chapter XI: Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

  • to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
  • to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
  • to further international peace and security;
  • to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
  • to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.

Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.

Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements. These territories are hereinafter referred to as trust territories.

The basic objectives of the trusteeship system, in accordance with the Purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be:

  • to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
  • to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and
  • to ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80.
  • territories now held under mandate;
  • territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
  • territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
  • It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.

The terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the trusteeship system, including any alteration or amendment, shall be agreed upon by the states directly concerned, including the mandatory power in the case of territories held under mandate by a Member of the United Nations, and shall be approved as provided for in Articles 83 and 85.

  • Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
  • Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.

The trusteeship agreement shall in each case include the terms under which the trust territory will be administered and designate the authority which will exercise the administration of the trust territory. Such authority, hereinafter called the administering authority, may be one or more states or the Organization itself.

There may be designated, in any trusteeship agreement, a strategic area or areas which may include part or all of the trust territory to which the agreement applies, without prejudice to any special agreement or agreements made under Article 43.

  • All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment shall be exercised by the Security Council.
  • The basic objectives set forth in Article 76 shall be applicable to the people of each strategic area.
  • The Security Council shall, subject to the provisions of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice to security considerations, avail itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council to perform those functions of the United Nations under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social, and educational matters in the strategic areas.

It shall be the duty of the administering authority to ensure that the trust territory shall play its part in the maintenance of international peace and security. To this end the administering authority may make use of volunteer forces, facilities, and assistance from the trust territory in carrying out the obligations towards the Security Council undertaken in this regard by the administering authority, as well as for local defence and the maintenance of law and order within the trust territory.

  • The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.
  • The Trusteeship Council, operating under the authority of the General Assembly shall assist the General Assembly in carrying out these functions.

Chapter XIII: The Trusteeship Council

  • those Members administering trust territories;
  • such of those Members mentioned by name in Article 23 as are not administering trust territories; and
  • as many other Members elected for three-year terms by the General Assembly as may be necessary to ensure that the total number of members of the Trusteeship Council is equally divided between those Members of the United Nations which administer trust territories and those which do not.
  • Each member of the Trusteeship Council shall designate one specially qualified person to represent it therein.

The General Assembly and, under its authority, the Trusteeship Council, in carrying out their functions, may:

  • consider reports submitted by the administering authority;
  • accept petitions and examine them in consultation with the administering authority;
  • provide for periodic visits to the respective trust territories at times agreed upon with the administering authority; and
  • take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements.

The Trusteeship Council shall formulate a questionnaire on the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of each trust territory, and the administering authority for each trust territory within the competence of the General Assembly shall make an annual report to the General Assembly upon the basis of such questionnaire.

  • Each member of the Trusteeship Council shall have one vote.
  • Decisions of the Trusteeship Council shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.
  • The Trusteeship Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President.
  • The Trusteeship Council shall meet as required in accordance with its rules, which shall include provision for the convening of meetings on the request of a majority of its members.

The Trusteeship Council shall, when appropriate, avail itself of the assistance of the Economic and Social Council and of the specialized agencies in regard to matters with which they are respectively concerned.

Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.

  • All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
  • A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
  • Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
  • If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

Nothing in the present Charter shall prevent Members of the United Nations from entrusting the solution of their differences to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future.

  • The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.
  • Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

Chapter XV: The Secretariat

The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity in all meetings of the General Assembly, of the Security Council, of the Economic and Social Council, and of the Trusteeship Council, and shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these organs. The Secretary-General shall make an annual report to the General Assembly on the work of the Organization.

The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 100

  • In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization.
  • Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.

Article 101

  • The staff shall be appointed by the Secretary-General under regulations established by the General Assembly.
  • Appropriate staffs shall be permanently assigned to the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and, as required, to other organs of the United Nations. These staffs shall form a part of the Secretariat.
  • The paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.

Chapter XVI: Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 102.

  • Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
  • No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.

Article 103

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

Article 104

The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

Article 105

  • The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.
  • Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization.
  • The General Assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article or may propose conventions to the Members of the United Nations for this purpose.

Chapter XVII: Transitional Security Arrangements

Article 106.

Pending the coming into force of such special agreements referred to in Article 43 as in the opinion of the Security Council enable it to begin the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 42, the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration, signed at Moscow, 30 October 1943, and France, shall, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of that Declaration, consult with one another and as occasion requires with other Members of the United Nations with a view to such joint action on behalf of the Organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Article 107

Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Article 108.

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

Article 109

  • A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.
  • Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.
  • If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.

Chapter XIX: Ratification and Signature

Article 110.

  • The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
  • The ratifications shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America, which shall notify all the signatory states of each deposit as well as the Secretary-General of the Organization when he has been appointed.
  • The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states. A protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America which shall communicate copies thereof to all the signatory states.
  • The states signatory to the present Charter which ratify it after it has come into force will become original Members of the United Nations on the date of the deposit of their respective ratifications.

Article 111

The present Charter, of which the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of the other signatory states.

In Faith Whereof the representatives of the Governments of the United Nations have signed the present Charter. DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.

Note on Amendments to Articles 23, 27, 61, 109

Amendments to Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the Charter were adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 1963 and came into force on 31 August 1965. A further amendment to Article 61 was adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1971, and came into force on 24 September 1973. An amendment to Article 109, adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 1965, came into force on 12 June 1968.

The amendment to Article 23 enlarges the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen. The amended Article 27 provides that decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven) and on all other matters by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven), including the concurring votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

The amendment to Article 61, which entered into force on 31 August 1965, enlarged the membership of the Economic and Social Council from eighteen to twenty-seven. The subsequent amendment to that Article, which entered into force on 24 September 1973, further increased the membership of the Council from twenty-seven to fifty-four.

The amendment to Article 109, which relates to the first paragraph of that Article, provides that a General Conference of Member States for the purpose of reviewing the Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members (formerly seven) of the Security Council. Paragraph 3 of Article 109, which deals with the consideration of a possible review conference during the tenth regular session of the General Assembly, has been retained in its original form in its reference to a "vote, of any seven members of the Security Council", the paragraph having been acted upon in 1955 by the General Assembly, at its tenth regular session, and by the Security Council.

  • General Assembly
  • Security Council
  • Economic and Social Council
  • Trusteeship Council
  • International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

  • UN System Directory
  • UN System Chart
  • Global Leadership
  • UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

  • Emergency information
  • Reporting Wrongdoing
  • Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
  • UN iLibrary
  • UN Chronicle
  • UN Yearbook
  • Publications for sale
  • Media Accreditation
  • NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
  • NGO accreditation at DGC
  • Visitors’ services
  • Procurement
  • Internships
  • Academic Impact
  • UN Archives
  • UN Audiovisual Library
  • How to donate to the UN system
  • Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
  • Africa Renewal
  • Ten ways the UN makes a difference
  • High-level summits 2023

Key Documents

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child
  • Statute of the International Court of Justice
  • Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

  • Press Releases
  • Spokesperson
  • Social Media
  • The Essential UN
  • Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

  • Sustainable Development Goals
  • Our Common Agenda
  • Summit of the Future
  • Climate Action
  • UN and Sustainability
  • Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
  • Global Ceasefire
  • Global Crisis Response Group
  • Call to Action for Human Rights
  • Disability Inclusion Strategy
  • Fight Racism
  • Hate Speech
  • Safety of Journalists
  • Rule of Law
  • Action to Counter Terrorism
  • Victims of Terrorism
  • Children and Armed Conflict
  • Violence Against Children (SRSG)
  • Sexual Violence in Conflict
  • Refugees and Migrants
  • Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
  • Spotlight Initiative
  • Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
  • Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
  • The Rwanda Genocide
  • The Holocaust
  • The Question of Palestine
  • The Transatlantic Slave Trade
  • Decolonization
  • Messengers of Peace
  • Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
  • Digital Financing Task Force
  • Data Strategy
  • Countering Disinformation
  • UN75: 2020 and Beyond
  • Women Rise for All
  • Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
  • Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre
  • Türkiye-Syria Earthquake Response (Donate)

Select site language

  • Slovenščina

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Title vii general provisions, article 53 - level of protection.

Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States'' constitutions.

This provision is intended to maintain the level of protection currently afforded within their respective scope by Union law, national law and international law. Owing to its importance, mention is made of the ECHR.

  • Belgium / Constitutional Court / Nr. 111/2023 Order of Flemish Bars and Alain Claes and the de facto association “Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers” and others v. The Government of the Brussels-Capital Region and the Flemish Government Decision date: 20 July 2023 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Constitutional Court Type: Decision Policy area: ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:BE:GHCC:2023:ARR.111
  • Cyprus / District Court of Paphos / Extradition Application No. 3/21 Re. the application for the extradition of ΧΧΧ Laverty, ΧΧΧ Georgiou, ΧΧΧ Mardell, ΧΧΧ Georgiou, ΧΧΧ Gillie dated 28.3.22 (Interim decision) Decision date: 24 May 2022 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: District Court of Paphos Type: Decision Policy area: Justice, freedom and security ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:CY:EDPAF:2022:B19
  • Germany / Federal Constitutional Court / 2 BvR 206/14 Two subsidiaries of a pharmaceutical company v. Federal Administrative Court Decision date: 27 April 2021 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Federal Constitutional Court Type: Decision Policy area: Public Health ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2021:rs20210427.2bvr020614
  • Greece / Court of Auditors / 523/2021 Beneficiary of funding by the European Structural and Investment Funds – Regional Operational Programme for the South Aegean (2000-2006) vs. Greek State (Ministry of Finance) Decision date: 07 April 2021 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Court of Auditors Type: Decision Policy area: Justice, freedom and security ECLI (European case law identifier):
  • Cyprus / Supreme Court of Cyprus / Αppeals against Administrative Court decisions n. 177/18, 75/19, 76/19, 77/19, 79/19, 80/19, 84/19 και 85/19 Republic of Cyprus v. Avgousti et al Decision date: 10 April 2020 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Supreme Court of Cyprus Type: Policy area: ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:CY:AD:2020:C122
  • Cyprus / Supreme Court of Cyprus / 230/201 Attorney General v xxx Proios Decision date: 03 March 2020 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Supreme Court Type: Decision Policy area: ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:CY:AD:2020:A8
  • Germany/ Federal Constitutional Court/ 1 BvR 16/13 („Right to be Forgotten I“) Anonymous plaintiff v. Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Decision date: 06 November 2019 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Federal Constitutional Court Type: Policy area: ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:rs20191106.1bvr001613
  • Germany/ Federal Constitutional Court/ 1 BvR 276/17 („Right to be forgotten II“) Anonymous plaintiff v. Higher Regional Court Celle (Oberlandesgericht Celle) Decision date: 06 November 2019 Deciding body type: National Court/Tribunal Deciding body: Federal Constitutional Court Type: Policy area: ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2019:rs20191106.1bvr027617
  • CJEU Case C-128/18/ Judgment Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamburg Decision date: 15 October 2019 Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Grand Chamber Type: Policy area: Justice, freedom and security ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2019:857
  • CJEU Case C-220/18 PPU / Opinion ML Decision date: 04 July 2018 Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Advocate General Type: Opinion Policy area: Justice, freedom and security ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2018:547

18 results found

Artikel 94 Binnen het Koninkrijk geldende wettelijke voorschriften vinden geen toepassing, indien deze toepassing niet verenigbaar is met een ieder verbindende bepalingen van verdragen en van besluiten van volkenrechtelijke organisaties.

Section 3 Interpretation of legislation. (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. (2) This section— (a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted; (b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and (c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.

Kaptiel 2, artikel 19. Lag eller annan föreskrift får inte meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Kapitel 10, artikel 6. Inom ramen för samarbetet i Europeiska unionen kan riksdagen överlåta beslutanderätt som inte rör principerna för statsskicket. Sådan överlåtelse förutsätter att fri- och rättighetsskyddet inom det samarbetsområde till vilket överlåtelsen sker motsvarar det som ges i denna regeringsform och i den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Kapitel 11, artikel 14. Finner en domstol att en föreskrift står i strid med en bestämmelse i grundlag eller annan överordnad författning får föreskriften inte tillämpas. Detsamma gäller om stadgad ordning i något väsentligt hänseende har åsidosatts vid föreskriftens tillkomst. Vid prövning enligt första stycket av en lag ska det särskilt beaktas att riksdagen är folkets främsta företrädare och att grundlag går före lag.

Article 15 (Exercise and Limitation of Rights) Human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be exercised directly on the basis of the Constitution. The manner in which human rights and fundamental freedoms are exercised may be regulated by law whenever the Constitution so provides or where this is necessary due to the particular nature of an individual right or freedom. Human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be limited only by the rights of others and in such cases as are provided by this Constitution. Judicial protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the right to obtain redress for the violation of such rights and freedoms, shall be guaranteed. No human right or fundamental freedom regulated by legal acts in force in Slovenia may be restricted on the grounds that this Constitution does not recognise that right or freedom or recognises it to a lesser extent.

15. člen (uresničevanje in omejevanje pravic) Človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine se uresničujejo neposredno na podlagi ustave. Z zakonom je mogoče predpisati način uresničevanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, kadar tako določa ustava, ali če je to nujno zaradi same narave posamezne pravice ali svoboščine. Človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine so omejene samo s pravicami drugih in v primerih, ki jih določa ta ustava. Zagotovljeni sta sodno varstvo človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin ter pravica do odprave posledic njihove kršitve. Nobene človekove pravice ali temeljne svoboščine, urejene v pravnih aktih, ki veljajo v Sloveniji, ni dopustno omejevati z izgovorom, da je ta ustava ne priznava ali da jo priznava v manjši meri.

Articolul 53: (1) Exercitiul unor drepturi sau al unor libertati poate fi restrâns numai prin lege si numai daca se impune, dupa caz, pentru: apararea securitatii nationale, a ordinii, a sanatatii ori a moralei publice, a drepturilor si a libertatilor cetatenilor; desfasurarea instructiei penale; prevenirea consecintelor unei calamitati naturale, ale unui dezastru ori ale unui sinistru deosebit de grav. (2) Restrângerea poate fi dispusa numai daca este necesara într-o societate democratica. Masura trebuie sa fie proportionala cu situatia care a determinat-o, sa fie aplicata în mod nediscriminatoriu si fara a aduce atingere existentei dreptului sau a libertatii.

ARTICLE 53 - (1) The exercise of certain rights or freedoms may only be restricted by law, and only if necessary, as the case may be, for: the defence of national security, of public order, health, or morals, of the citizens' rights and freedoms; conducting a criminal investigation; preventing the consequences of a natural calamity, disaster, or an extremely severe catastrophe. (2) Such restriction shall only be ordered if necessary in a democratic society. The measure shall be proportional to the situation having caused it, applied without discrimination, and without infringing on the existence of such right or freedom.

Artigo 16.º (Âmbito e sentido dos direitos fundamentais) 1. Os direitos fundamentais consagrados na Constituição não excluem quaisquer outros constantes das leis e das regras aplicáveis de direito internacional. 2. Os preceitos constitucionais e legais relativos aos direitos fundamentais devem ser interpretados e integrados de harmonia com a Declaração Universal dos Direitos do Homem. Artigo 18.º (Força jurídica) 1. Os preceitos constitucionais respeitantes aos direitos, liberdades e garantias são directamente aplicáveis e vinculam as entidades públicas e privadas. 2. A lei só pode restringir os direitos, liberdades e garantias nos casos expressamente previstos na Constituição, devendo as restrições limitar-se ao necessário para salvaguardar outros direitos ou interesses constitucionalmente protegidos. 3. As leis restritivas de direitos, liberdades e garantias têm de revestir carácter geral e abstracto e não podem ter efeito retroactivo nem diminuir a extensão e o alcance do conteúdo essencial dos preceitos constitucionais.

Article 16 (Scope and interpretation of fundamental rights) (1) The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution shall not exclude any other set out in applicable international laws and legal rules. (2) The constitutional precepts concerning fundamental rights must be interpreted and completed in harmony with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 (Legal force) (1) The constitutional precepts with regard to rights, freedoms and guarantees are directly applicable and are binding on public and private entities. (2) The law may only restrict rights, freedoms and guarantees in cases expressly provided for in the Constitution, and such restrictions must be limited to those needed to safeguard other constitutionally protected rights and interests. (3). Laws that restrict rights, freedoms and guarantees must have a general and abstract nature and may not have a retroactive effect or reduce the extent or scope of the essential content of the constitutional precepts.

  • National constitutional law URL: Country: Ireland

Article 25 The general rules of international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory.

Artikel 25 Die allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechtes sind Bestandteil des Bundesrechtes. Sie gehen den Gesetzen vor und erzeugen Rechte und Pflichten unmittelbar für die Bewohner des Bundesgebietes.

§ 10. The rights, freedoms and duties set out in this chapter do not preclude other rights, freedoms and duties which arise from the spirit of the Constitution or are in accordance therewith, and which are in conformity with the principles of human dignity, social justice and democratic government founded on the rule of law.

§ 11. Rights and freedoms may only be circumscribed in accordance with the Constitution. Such circumscription must be necessary in a democratic society and may not distort the nature of the rights and freedoms circumscribed.

ARTICLE 1A No provision of the Constitution is deemed as annulling laws adopted, deeds carried out or measures taken by the Republic which are rendered necessary as a result of the obligations of the Republic as a member state of the European Union nor does it preclude Regulations, Directives or other acts or binding measures of a legislative character adopted by the European Union or by the European Communities or by the institutions or competent bodies under the treaties setting up the European Communities or the European Union from having legal force in the Republic. ARTICLE 33 1. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution relating to a state of emergency, the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by this Part shall not be subjected to any other limitations or restrictions than those in this Part provided. 2. The provisions of this Part relating to such limitations or restrictions shall be interpreted strictly and shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

ΑΡΘΡΟ 1Α: Ουδεμία διάταξη του Συντάγματος θεωρείται ότι ακυρώνει νόμους που θεσπίζονται, πράξεις που διενεργούνται ή μέτρα που λαμβάνονται από τη Δημοκρατία τα οποία καθίστανται αναγκαία από τις υποχρεώσεις της ως κράτους μέλους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ούτε εμποδίζει Κανονισμούς, Οδηγίες ή άλλες πράξεις ή δεσμευτικά μέτρα νομοθετικού χαρακτήρα που θεσπίζονται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ή από τις Ευρωπαϊκές Κοινότητες ή από τα θεσμικά τους όργανα ή από τα αρμόδιά τους σώματα στη βάση των συνθηκών που ιδρύουν τις Ευρωπαϊκές Κοινότητες ή την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση από του να έχουν νομική ισχύ στη Δημοκρατία. ΑΡΘΡΟΝ 33 1. Τηρουμένων των διατάξεως του Συντάγματος των σχετικών προς την κατάστασιν εκτάκτου ανάγκης, τα υπό του παρόντος μέρους ηγγυημένα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα και ελευθερίαι δεν υπόκεινται εις οιονδήποτε έτερον όρον, δέσμευσιν ή περιορισμόν πλην των εν τω παρόντι μέρει οριζομένων. 2. Αι διατάξεις του παρόντος μέρους αι αναφερόμεναι εις τοιούτους όρους, δεσμεύσεις ή περιορισμούς δέον να ερμηνεύωνται στενώς και να μη εφαρμόζωνται δι’ οιονδήποτε σκοπόν διάφορον εκείνου δι’ ον εθεσπίσθησαν.

  • Constitution of the Republic of Croatia URL: Constitution of the Republic of Croatia Country: Croatia

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a party.

Artikel 53 Keine Bestimmung dieser Konvention darf als Beschränkung oder Minderung eines der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten ausgelegt werden, die in den Gesetzen eines Hohen Vertragschließenden Teils oder einer anderen Vereinbarung, an der er beteiligt ist, festgelegt sind.

0 results found

what is article 53

Applying the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in law and policymaking at national level - Guidance

what is article 53

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Use and added value in EU Member States

  • Language selection

Chapter I – Patentability

Article 53 40 , 41 exceptions to patentability.

European patents shall not be granted in respect of:

(a) inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality; such exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the Contracting States;  

(b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; this provision shall not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof; 

(c) methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body; this provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods. 

40 Amended by the Act revising the European Patent Convention of 29.11.2000.

41 See decisions/opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 3/95 , G 1/98 , G 1/03 , G 2/03 , G 1/04 , G 2/06 , G 1/07 , G 2/07 , G 1/08 , G 2/08 , G 1/16 , G 3/19 (Annex I).

  • Art. 54 , 100 , 138 R. 28 , 29

Logo

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

  • Get New Issue Alerts
  • Get Advance Article alerts
  • Get Citation Alerts

Article 53 echr and Minimum Protection by the European Court of Human Rights

It is often emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights ( echr or Convention) offers only minimum protection and states are allowed to offer additional guarantees. Indeed, Article 53 echr obliges the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to respect such national guarantees if they go beyond the Convention. Similar provisions are usually included in human rights treaties as ‘priority clauses’, which mean that human rights bodies should respect more protective national laws. In such a reading, Article 53 could both add to and detract from the protection offered by the Convention, especially in cases where national and Convention rights clash. Based on an analysis of the Court’s case law, this paper shows that the Court does not rely on Article 53 in such conflicting rights cases, but rather prefers to use avoidance and balancing strategies. Instead, the Court uses Article 53 to reinforce national fundamental rights protection, thereby reducing the risk of harming the minimum level of protection provided by the Convention.

  • 1 Introduction

One of the main objectives of the European Convention on Human Rights ( echr or Convention) is to offer a minimum level of protection of fundamental rights in all Convention states. 1 The Convention thus constitutes the minimum common denominator – or ‘floor’ 2 or ‘bottom line’ 3 – of what can be expected of states in terms of respect for and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. 4 Based on Article 1 echr and in line with the primarity and subsidiarity principles, the Convention states have committed themselves to securing that level of protection to every person under their jurisdiction. 5 As a supervisory body, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) can check if the contracting states have complied with the Convention obligations in concrete cases. 6 The Court is also competent to interpret and refine these obligations based on Articles 19 and 32 echr . 7 By doing so, it can clarify the minimum level of protection that states must guarantee. 8

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a party.

This provision is often referred to as a ‘most protective’ clause or ‘priority rule’, since it allows the highest available level of fundamental rights protection to prevail. 9 As such, and in line with the principles of primarity and subsidiarity, Article 53 allows states to create or maintain their own higher levels of protection of fundamental rights, for instance in their national constitutions or by means of ratifying international treaties. 10 Article 53 would thus seem to be conducive to guaranteeing a high level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in the contracting states. After all, it expressly allows them to go beyond the minimum required by the Convention and offer more robust protection.

At the same time, it could be argued that Article 53 constitutes a potential risk from the very same perspective of the level of protection of rights. This risk is particularly present in cases on conflicting fundamental rights. In such cases, a state may choose to guarantee one specific fundamental right – such as the freedom of expression – at a very high level, as permitted by Article 53. By doing so, however, it may infringe another right – such as the right to reputation or the prohibition of discrimination – to a degree that is not permitted by the Convention. 11

In light of these opportunities and risks, it may be considered surprising that little attention has been paid to Article 53 in legal scholarship and in case law. 12 To fill this gap, the twofold aim of this paper is to explore (1) what role Article 53 echr has played in the case law of the ECtHR so far, and (2) whether it has any tangible impact on minimum Convention protection.

In view of this aim, a systematic case law analysis has been conducted, 13 concentrating on two different functions that Article 53 echr can arguably have. 14 This paper presents the results of that analysis.

First, as mentioned above, it is often suggested in scholarly literature that Article 53 could serve as a priority rule . 15 This means that the highest level of protection of a fundamental right should prevail in concrete cases, whether this is the national or the echr protection. Section 2 examines whether the Court has applied Article 53 in this particular reading and finds that – so far – this is not the case. A likely explanation for this is that the priority reading is not well-suited to dealing with conflicts of fundamental rights and its application may have more risks than benefits where the minimum protection of rights is concerned. As section 2 demonstrates, the ECtHR tends to rely on alternative approaches to deal with conflicts between national and European fundamental rights instead.

Second, the situation can be distinguished where a high degree of protection is offered to a fundamental right at the national level, without there being a conflict of rights. Section 3 will demonstrate that in such cases, Article 53 has a complementary or reinforcement function . This means that it can form the basis for recognising the national protection offered to a certain fundamental right, and for complementing and reinforcing this protection by adding specific elements of Convention protection. Section 3 also shows that this particular application of Article 53 can contribute to upholding and even adding to the minimum level of Convention protection, although there are some exceptions to the reinforcement case law that are difficult to explain.

Based on these findings and reasoning from the perspective of the need to uphold a minimum level of fundamental rights protection, the concluding section, section 4 , submits that Article 53 cannot be expected to play a role as a priority principle in conflicting rights cases. However, this is different for reinforcement cases. For those cases, Article 53 arguably provides a useful tool that could be relied on more often in order to bring national and Convention protection closer together.

2 Article 53 echr as Priority Rule in Conflicting Rights Cases

  • 2.1 Introduction

Many international human rights treaties contain ‘most protective’ clauses such as Article 53 echr . They are usually read as meaning that the highest level of protection offered to a fundamental right should prevail, whether this protection is offered by the international treaty or in the domestic legal order. 16 The benefit of such ‘most protective’ clauses is that they allow states to highlight and maintain rights that are of special importance to them, such as a full prohibition of all forms of censure, 17 the right to protect unborn life, or certain social and economic rights. 18 The ‘most protective’ (or ‘no prejudice’) clauses ensure that international human rights treaties do not stand in the way of such national protection. 19

Regardless of their widespread occurrence in international human rights treaties, priority clauses are seldom applied in practice. 20 Various scholarly analyses have shown that, when framing these clauses, the drafters probably had a rather theoretical and abstract image in mind of how international treaties and national constitutions would interact. 21 To the extent that drafters considered concrete cases of the application of these norms, they seem to have considered relatively straightforward situations. 22 For example, it is easy for an international instrument to give way to a national constitution if the nationally protected right – such as a right to environmental protection – has not found a place in the international instrument at all. The same may be true if the international and national norms are complementary and only the norm as such is considered. For example, if there is a full prohibition of censure at the national level and only an incomplete protection of the freedom of expression at the level of an international treaty, and an individual claims the higher national protection before an international body, such higher protection can be granted without any particular risks or costs. 23

However, as mentioned in the introduction to this paper and as has been pointed out in most scholarly analyses, the interpretation of provisions like Article 53 echr as ‘priority’ clauses can create difficulties in cases disclosing a clash between different rights, values, or interpretations which seemingly have a similar value. 24 One may think here of classic cases of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of one’s reputation, the prohibition of discrimination and the freedom of expression, or different aspects of the right to respect for one’s family life and the rights of the child. In practice, each of these conflicting rights cases is different. For example, reputation damage may be done by maliciously reporting incorrect information about a private individual, but also by a well-researched and nuanced disclosure of information about abuse of authority by a head of state. In light of the differences between such cases, the outcome of a test of reasonableness or proportionality of limitations will not be the same. It is for this reason that they are often dealt with by means of an ad hoc balancing test.

These differences between conflicting rights cases make it difficult to solve them by applying Article 53 echr as a priority rule, since that application would result in a rather absolute ‘one size fits all’ approach. Consider, for example, the hypothetical situation in which a national constitution gives very strong protection to the right to reputation and the private life of the head of state by strictly prohibiting all forms of lèse majesté . This could be considered a fundamental right that is protected to a high level by national law, as, according to the text of Article 53 echr , it cannot be ‘limited or derogated from’ by the Convention and therefore would need to be respected by the Court. However, the obligation to accept such rather absolute national protection would be difficult to reconcile with the high minimum level of protection that the Convention offers to the conflicting freedom of expression. 25 Moreover, such an absolute reading of Article 53 would stand in the way of engaging in ad hoc balancing in the actual case, which would make it impossible to take account of factual particularities and differences.

In view of this, it is perhaps not surprising that the Strasbourg organs do not usually refer to Article 53 echr in dealing with cases where national and Convention rights come into conflict. 26 Nevertheless, in light of the scholarly explanation of Article 53 echr , the application of this provision as a priority rule warrants a more detailed study. To explain how the Strasbourg organs have used the provision in this type of situation, it is useful to first discuss two (rare) cases in which the respondent government expressly invoked Article 53 and analyse how these were dealt with at the Strasbourg level. Thereafter, section 2.2 will confirm that, indeed, the ECtHR tends to evade having to apply Article 53 echr in these cases. Subsequently, section 2.3 discusses two alternative approaches taken by the Court in dealing with a conflict between a Convention right and a (highly protected) national fundamental right. Section 2.4 briefly summarises the findings and places them in light of the need to uphold a minimum level of Convention rights protection.

  • 2.2 Express Invocation of Article 53 – The Strasbourg Approach

The first conflict of rights case in which Article 53 was expressly invoked by the respondent government is Glimmerveen and Hagebeek v the Netherlands . 27 The case concerned the conviction of two members of a neo-nazist political party for distributing leaflets, which the national court found to be inciting to racial discrimination. The applicants had complained about the resulting interference with the freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 echr , but the Netherlands government defended the conviction by explaining that it was necessary to protect against discrimination. The government thereby drew the attention of the European Commission of Human Rights to the Dutch obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination ( cerd ). It pointed to Article 53 to underpin its argument that its international obligations to protect individuals and society against racial discrimination would need to be given priority over its obligation under the Convention to respect the freedom of expression. 28 In the end, the Commission chose to declare the case inadmissible based on Article 17 echr , which prohibits the abuse of fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression. Consequently, it did not have to address the government’s arguments concerning the cerd and its relationship to Article 10 and Article 14 echr .

Another case on conflicting rights in which the respondent state relied on Article 53 is Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland . 29 The case concerned a conflict between the right to access to information about the possibilities of having an abortion in another country, which is protected by Article 10 echr , and the rights of the unborn child, which were very strongly protected by the Irish Constitution. The Irish government had argued that the national constitutional right would be severely impeded if Article 10 echr were interpreted as meaning that women should be allowed to have access to information about abortions abroad. Expressly invoking Article 53 echr , the government alleged that Article 10 ‘should not be interpreted in such a manner as to limit, destroy or derogate from the right to life of the unborn which enjoys special protection under Irish law’. 30 However, the Court held that it was ‘… not the interpretation of Article 10 but the position in Ireland as regards the implementation of the law that [made] possible the continuance of the current level of abortions obtained by Irish women abroad’. 31 It thus did not need to answer the question as to whether the case concerned a real conflict between a Convention right and a constitutional right, and it did not have to explain the role to be played in such conflicts by Article 53 echr . 32

Obviously, both cases concerned a conflict between a Convention right and a nationally or internationally protected fundamental right. Moreover, in both cases the respondent states invoked Article 53 as a priority rule. However, the Commission and the Court declined the invitation to decide on the meaning of Article 53 echr . Their reluctance is understandable in light of the theoretical objections set out in section 2.1 . Reading Article 53 echr as a priority rule in such cases would mean that a higher national level of protection would always have to prevail over the Convention level, regardless of the circumstances of the case. 33 Indeed, the Court would unconditionally and automatically have to accept and respect the national protection of a certain fundamental right, regardless of how it relates to other Convention rights and to its own case law. 34 In a case like Open Door and Dublin Well Woman , for example, the Court would have to accept that a national constitutional right to protect unborn life would always prevail over the Convention right to information, regardless of the circumstances of the case. Such absolute priority for very high levels of national protection of fundamental rights is difficult to defend, since the result might impinge on the minimum level of protection of Convention rights, such as under Articles 8 and 10. This would be hard to reconcile with the principle of effective protection that is at the very heart of the Convention system. 35

In addition, a priority reading of Article 53 echr in such conflicting rights cases would not sit easily with the Court’s role in the Convention system. Articles 19, 32, and 34 echr suggest that the Court should always be able to act as a supervising body to determine whether the Convention rights have been duly respected by the national authorities. 36 A clear national choice to offer a particularly strong protection to one of the rights or interests at stake could hamper the Court’s ability to engage in a full review of the reasonableness of certain interferences and thereby unduly limit its supervisory role.

It can be concluded from this that in conflicting rights cases, Article 53 echr cannot operate properly as a priority rule without posing a risk to the minimum protection of Convention rights and the Court’s supervisory role. 37

  • 2.3 Alternative Approaches to Dealing with Conflicting Rights Cases

As is shown by the above discussion of the Court’s (limited) practice, Article 53 does not appear to play any role of importance as a priority rule in cases where Convention rights and national fundamental rights and freedoms come into conflict. Nevertheless, the question may arise as to how, then, the Court strives to reconcile, on the one hand, the need to guarantee a minimum level of Convention protection and, on the other hand, the need – still implied by Article 53 echr – to respect a national choice to give additional weight to a right or freedom that is dearly held and highly protected at the national level.

To understand the approach that the Court has taken in this regard, it is important to note that in many cases, nationally protected fundamental rights and interests may be covered by the wide notion of ‘the rights and freedoms of others’ or one of the other legitimate aims that – according to most limitation clauses in the Convention – can serve to justify a limitation of a Convention right. 38 Such exemption clauses, in particular the proportionality and balancing standards implied therein, allow the Court to examine if a nationally claimed (fundamental) right or interest can reasonably prevail over a Convention right. 39

The objective of the current section is to show how the Court uses the exemption clauses to deal with claims made by national authorities to the effect that nationally protected fundamental rights and freedoms should be given priority over the Convention, as seems to be permitted by Article 53 echr . The analysis of the Court’s case law shows that the Court can deal with the difficulties involved in such cases in different ways. An important and well-known approach is by leaving states a certain margin of appreciation and thereby offering them leeway to give strong protection to certain national interests; another one is by focussing on compliance with procedural standards, which allows the Court to avoid having to engage in a substantive analysis of a conflict of rights. Since these two techniques and their pros and cons have been extensively discussed elsewhere, 40 the current section largely leaves them aside. Instead, it concentrates on two specific strategies – one of balancing (section 2.3.1 ) and one of avoidance (section 2.3.2 ) – and the way in which they are applied in the particular situation of a conflict between a Convention right and a nationally protected right.

2.3.1 Balancing

The first strategy to deal with conflicts between Convention rights and national rights entails that the Court holds that a national right or value is similar to a Convention right and then engages in much the same type of balancing review that it normally conducts in cases concerning conflicting Convention rights. 41 An example of this approach can be seen in Ebrahimian v France , which concerned the non-renewal of the contract of a social worker in a psychiatric unit of a public hospital for wearing a veil. The Court accepted that this had affected the applicant’s freedom to manifest her religion as protected by Article 9 echr . It also noted that the non-renewal of her contract was based on legislation that followed directly from the principle of secularism laid down in Article 1 of the French Constitution and the resultant principle of neutrality in public services. 42 The Court equated this principle to fundamental rights and freedoms, holding that it ‘… is clear from the case file that it was indeed the requirement of protection of the rights and freedoms of others … which lay behind the contested decision’. Subsequently, it reviewed the balance that had been struck between these interests at the national level. It thereby found that ‘… the fact that the domestic courts attached greater weight to this principle and to the State’s interests than to the applicant’s interest in not limiting the expression of her religious beliefs does not give rise to an issue under the Convention’. 43

Hence, not only did the Court accept that a national constitutional principle was at play, but it also regarded it as a weighty interest similar to a ‘right’. 44 This allowed it to balance it against Article 9 echr in much the same way as it would do in a case on conflicting Convention rights. 45 In addition, the judgment shows that the state was given considerable leeway to decide whether and under what conditions the national fundamental principle could be made to prevail over a Convention right. 46 Taken together, this permitted the Court to allow for special protection of the national principle, without having to rely on or refer to Article 53 echr .

must examine whether the prohibition of abortion in Ireland for health and/or well-being reasons struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the first and second applicants’ right to respect for their private lives under Article 8 and, on the other, profound moral values of the Irish people as to the nature of life and consequently as to the need to protect the life of the unborn. 50

Although the Court did not expressly qualify this case as a conflicting rights case, it can be derived from its reasoning that it regarded the right to life of the unborn as a right that was equivalent to Convention rights. The Court then engaged in a review of the national interference with the applicants’ Article 8 rights, leaving a wide margin of appreciation to the state and concluding that the prohibition struck a fair balance between the right to respect for the applicants’ private lives ‘and the rights invoked on behalf of the unborn’. 51 The Court thus applied a type of balancing review, similar to the one usually applied in cases on conflicts between Convention rights. 52 This shows that the Court does not apply Article 53 echr as such in these cases, probably because that provision would entail that the national fundamental right should automatically be given priority. Instead, it engages in ad hoc balancing in each individual case, which may imply that occasionally the Convention right at stake is given priority over a conflicting national right.

2.3.2 Avoiding Balancing

In other cases where national fundamental rights have been invoked to justify an interference with the Convention, the Court has avoided the need to balance that national right against a Convention right. An example of this can be seen in Bayev v Russia , which concerned a prohibition of so-called ‘homo propaganda’. 53 The Russian government had defended the prohibition by pointing out that it was necessary to protect ‘the private lives and rights of minors’, thereby claiming that the prohibition stemmed from a conflict of fundamental rights. 54 The government argued that statements such as ‘homosexuality is natural’, ‘homosexuality is normal’, or ‘homosexuality is good’ would place psychological pressure on children, influence their self-identification, and intrude into their private lives. 55 In response to this, the Court chose not to regard the claimed rights as constituting a national constitutional right worthy of being balanced against the freedom of expression as protected by the Convention. 56 Instead, it found that the government’s position was based on assumptions that could be regarded as manifestations of predisposed bias. 57 Moreover, based on what is known about the influence of providing science-based information to minors about homosexuality, the Court concluded that the measures were in fact ‘likely to be counterproductive in achieving … the protection of rights of others’. 58 Thus, it could find a violation of Article 10 echr without having to balance the claimed national protection of the fundamental rights of minors against the Convention’s freedom of expression as if they were co-equal rights. 59

The Court took a comparable approach in Zhdanov and Other v Russia , which concerned the Russian refusal to register lgbt organisations as ‘public associations’ because, among other things, the government found that they might ‘jeopardise the constitutionally protected institutions of family and marriage’. 60 In light of what it had held in Bayev , the Court found that these constitutionally protected institutions could not be considered to be really affected by the lgtb organisations. Instead, it noted that the national authorities’ refusal to register the association appeared to be founded in an alleged ‘right not to be confronted with any display of same‑sex relations or promotion of lgbt rights or with the idea of equality of different-sex and same-sex relations’. 61 In response to this, the Court emphasised that ‘the Convention does not guarantee the right not to be confronted with opinions that are opposed to one’s own convictions’ and showed itself ‘not convinced that the refusals to register the applicant associations could be considered to pursue the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of others’. 62 Consequently, the Court did not have to pronounce its views on whether these rights, as protected at the national level, should be given priority over Article 11 echr .

One final example of the avoidance strategy can be found in Fedotova and Others v Russia . 63 The case concerned the lack of any form of legal recognition of same-sex unions, which the Russian government sought to justify by pointing at the opposition of a large percentage of the Russian population to same-sex marriages and the leeway that Russia should be given to develop its own policy ‘in line with its traditional understanding of marriage’. 64 The Court acknowledged that in 2020, the right to protect the traditional marriage had been laid down in the Russian Constitution. This could make it a national constitutional right of co-equal value to the Convention rights, which, at least potentially, could raise questions under Article 53 echr . Moreover, unlike in Bayev and Zhdanov , the Court conceded that this constitutional value constituted ‘in principle [a] weighty and legitimate interest’. 65 However, the Court further reasoned that it did not ‘discern any risks for traditional marriage which the formal acknowledgment of same-sex unions may involve, since it does not prevent different-sex couples from entering marriage, or enjoying the benefits which the marriage gives’. 66 Consequently, it could not ‘identify any prevailing community interest against which to balance the applicants’ interests as identified above’. 67 Thus, even though the Court recognised the national constitutional right as weighty and legitimate, it did not accept that it should play any role in justifying the interference with a Convention right because of the manifest unsuitability of the means used to protect it.

Hence, in all three cases the Court reasoned that the fundamental rights or principles claimed by the government did not amount to ‘rights of others’ that could be reasonably invoked in justification of the interference with a Convention right. Consequently, the Court did not have to examine the reasonableness of giving priority to such a right over one of the rights protected by the Convention, and could avoid having to answer the question raised by Article 53 of whether the protection of the Convention would ‘limit or derogate from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party’.

  • 2.4 Avoiding Article 53 and Ensuring a Minimum Level of Protection in Conflicting Rights Cases

The analysis provided in sections 2.2 and 2.3 shows that the Court has generally avoided the application of Article 53 echr in cases on conflicting Convention and national rights and values. Moreover, the judgments discussed in section 2.3 may serve to show that there is no need for the Court to rely on Article 53 in most cases involving conflicts between Convention rights and national fundamental rights and freedoms. The Court can either avoid having to deal with the interrelationship between Convention and national rights by disqualifying a national interest as one that is capable of justifying a restriction of a Convention right, or resort to the well-known balancing approach that it also uses in cases on conflicting Convention rights.

In addition, the approaches discussed in section 2.3 enable the Court to define and sustain the necessary minimum level of Convention protection. 68 Perhaps this is not self-evident, as the Court’s willingness to accept certain national principles as equal to fundamental rights and grant a wide margin of appreciation to the states in balancing them against Convention rights may have the effect of giving lesser protection to certain Convention rights than to particular national values. 69 However, the judgments discussed in section 2.3.2 show that the Court does not uncritically accept all national principles or interests as equal to Convention rights. It may hold that certain national values, rights, or principles do not constitute legitimate or relevant interests that it should take into account in its balancing review, however important these interests might be deemed to be at the national level. Such judgments signify that the Court firmly holds on to its competence to determine the minimum level of protection of Convention rights in deciding when and to what degree national values can be given priority over Convention rights in concrete cases.

It can further be derived from the examples discussed in this section that even if a Convention right is given a lower degree of protection in a concrete case in order to more fully guarantee the effective exercise of a national fundamental right or principle, this will hold only for one particular situation of conflict. For example, the principle of secularity may prevail in one case on limitations of religious manifestations, yet in the next one, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the freedom of religion may be given precedence. 70 Overall, therefore, it may be expected that the Court’s approach will result in the protection of Convention rights to a degree above the required minimum, even if in some concrete cases, national fundamental rights or principles can be seen to outweigh a Convention right. 71

Finally, the analysis shows that Article 53 has no tangible role to play in finding the delicate balance between respecting national protection of fundamental rights and offering a sufficiently high level of Convention protection. 72 If anything, the examples demonstrate that the Court actively avoids applying Article 53 (even if it is expressly invoked by a respondent government) and prefers to rely on alternative techniques. As was explained in section 2.1 , this is understandable in light of the absolute nature of Article 53 as a priority clause in conflicting rights cases. Once it would be accepted that a claimed national right or interest is ‘fundamental’, it should be given priority over the Convention rights. From the perspective of upholding a minimum level of protection of Convention rights, it is likely that the Court prefers to resort to its more common case-by-case balancing approach for that reason.

3 Article 53 as a Basis for Offering Complementary Convention Protection

  • 3.1 Introduction

In section 2 , it was explained that Article 53 echr does not play any significant role in the Court’s case law on conflicting national and Convention rights. Instead, tests of legitimacy, suitability, and balancing are central in reconciling the need to offer a minimum level of protection to the Convention rights with the obligation to respect national fundamental rights and freedoms. At the same time, this invites the question of whether Article 53 can play any other useful role in the Court’s case law and, if so, how that role relates to the principle of minimum Convention protection. The answer to this question can be found in the Court’s judgments about Article 53 in cases where no conflict of rights arises but national law still provides for a stronger protection of fundamental rights than is strictly required by the Convention. 73 The current section aims to present an analysis of these judgments, which will show that in some cases the Convention can usefully complement and add to the heightened protection given at the national level. To illuminate the role played by Article 53, the Court’s complementary or ‘reinforcement’ approach is discussed in section 3.2 , whilst some exceptions to it are set out in section 3.3 . Section 3.4 concludes by explaining the compatibility of the reinforcement interpretation of Article 53 echr with the need to provide for minimum Convention protection.

  • 3.2 ‘In for a Penny, in for a Pound’: Embracing and Reinforcing National Protection

As mentioned above, whereas Article 53 is seldom relied on in cases on conflicting rights, the Court has more frequently referred to it in cases where national law is complementary to the Convention. Most examples in this respect relate to Article 6 echr . To understand this, it may be useful to recall that the scope of application of Article 6 is limited to disputes on civil rights and obligations and criminal charges. The Court has given a wide, autonomous and evolutive meaning to these notions, but Article 6 still has its limitations. It does not, for example, apply to judicial proceedings on issues of immigration, elections, or taxation, 74 or oblige the contracting states to set up courts of appeal or cassation. 75 Furthermore, the list of procedural rights and guarantees contained in Article 6 is not exhaustive, and there are some gaps that may be filled at the national level. Indeed, the notion of minimum protection – as confirmed by Article 53 echr – allows the states parties to add to the material scope of protection afforded under Article 6 and guarantee additional procedural rights, for example in cases on taxation or procedures before an appeals court. 76

The Court does not countenance the view that human rights protection in any particular area should be weaker in Strasbourg than it is in domestic tribunals. That being so, the Court notes that the concept of “civil right” under Article 6 § 1 cannot be construed as limiting an enforceable right in domestic law within the meaning of Article 53 of the Convention …’. 78

Instead, in the Court’s view, the nature of the Convention in offering a collective guarantee to the protection of fundamental rights means that ‘… the Convention reinforces , in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the protection at national level’. 79

In most such cases, this ‘reinforcement’ means that the Court accepts that a certain procedure or right (which is not normally protected under Article 6) should also meet the other requirements of Article 6 echr . 80 For example, even if it is not obligatory under Article 6 to set up an appeals court or a court of cassation, if such a court has been established at the national level, the procedures before it should comply with the Court’s case law on the right to a fair trial. 81 As the Court has mentioned, this line of reasoning has the function of strengthening the national protection of Convention rights. 82

The present case does not concern adoption by a couple or by the same-sex partner of a biological parent, but solely adoption by a single person. Whilst Article 8 of the Convention is silent as to this question, the Court notes that French legislation expressly grants single persons the right to apply for authorisation to adopt and establishes a procedure to that end. Accordingly, the Court considers that the facts of this case undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention. Consequently, the State, which has gone beyond its obligations under Article 8 in creating such a right – a possibility open to it under Article 53 of the Convention – cannot, in the application of that right, take discriminatory measures within the meaning of Article 14 …. 85

If a certain fundamental right is recognised in domestic law and falls within the wider ‘ambit’ of a substantive Convention law provision, the Court thus considers itself competent to review the national legislation for its compatibility with the right to non-discrimination. 86 In other words, if a state voluntarily decides to offer more or higher protection than is strictly required by the Convention – proverbially meaning that it is ‘in for a penny’ –, it should also be ‘in for the pound’ of accepting that its higher protection should comply with the Convention obligation not to discriminate against certain persons or groups. 87 Over time, the Court has used this approach to decide many more cases that concern ‘new’, often delicate issues – such as reproductive rights, abortion, or the rights of same-sex couples –, which Article 8 of the Convention does not clearly cover, but may be protected by states beyond the requirements of the Convention. 88

beyond its obligations in creating further rights or a more favourable position – a possibility open to it under Article 53 of the Convention – [by enacting] legislation (of its own motion or pursuant to European Union law) explicitly authorising the entry or stay of immigrants pending an asylum application. 92

In such a situation, the Court reasoned, ‘an ensuing detention for the purpose of preventing an unauthorised entry may raise an issue as to the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 1 (f)’. 93 Hence, the Court connected the protection offered by Article 5(1) echr to the national, wider understanding of the notion of an unauthorised stay. After a further examination of the national interpretation and the facts of the case, it concluded that Article 5(1) echr had been violated in respect of the applicant’s immigration‑related detention, even though that provision normally would not have applied. 94 Again, this shows that the Court may use Article 53 to embrace the protection offered at the national level and then add to it by connecting the Article 5 requirements to the rights voluntarily recognised in domestic law.

The complementary or reinforcement reading of Article 53 can thus have the function of increasing the level of protection offered to a fundamental right. It should be noted, however, that Article 53 can only serve this function as long as a state – voluntarily – decides to provide such higher protection. This can be derived from Filat v Moldova , which was another case on Article 5 echr . 95 Originally, Moldovan legislation extended the scope of the procedural guarantees offered for pre-trial detention to detention following a ‘conviction by a competent court’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of the Convention. 96 As explained by the Court, this is not as such required by Article 5(4) echr . 97 However, in Filat’s case it turned out that the legislation had just been amended and no longer provided for any more far-reaching protection and procedural possibilities. Filat had complained about this, but the ECtHR held that the Moldovan legislature had been free to make this choice. It observed that Article 5(4) imposed no restriction on the freedom of states to decide whether or not to introduce additional safeguards to those required by that provision. 98 It therefore declared the complaint inadmissible. It can be concluded from this that the reinforcement interpretation really is connected to an existing national ‘surplus’ of protection. Once this surplus ceases to exist, the additional Convention protection can no longer be attached to it.

3.3 Exceptions to the ‘Reinforcement Interpretation’ of Article 53 echr ?

… in the circumstances of the present case, and specifically the fact that the circumstances which led the Constitutional Court to find a violation of Article 5 do not constitute a deprivation of liberty in the Court’s view, it would not be appropriate for the Court to examine whether the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court was disproportionate in the light of the order to pay costs, given that such an award would not have been made under the Convention. It suffices for the Court to find that the applicant had an enforceable right to compensation, which he pursued successfully. It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded …. 102

Apparently, the Court did not see any reason to apply its reinforcement approach. 103 Similarly, it has sometimes held that even if a state has voluntarily offered a wider protection in respect of procedural rights than would strictly be required by Article 6, this does not necessarily mean that the Court is competent to deal with a complaint related to the violation of such additional rights. 104 Instead, it may hold that the non-obligatory award of compensation or procedural rights falls within the state’s own responsibility and cannot be reviewed by the Court.

Another deviation from the Court’s reinforcement case law can be seen in a decision in Krombach v France . 105 Krombach had been suspected of rape and murder of his stepdaughter, but the criminal investigations had been dropped due to a lack of evidence. A few years later, the biological father of the stepdaughter abducted Krombach to France, where Krombach was still suspected and was soon arrested. Krombach alleged before the Court that the prosecution in France amounted to bis in idem , but the Court emphasised that the relevant Convention provision – Article 4 of Protocol No 7 echr – only applied to prosecutions which take place in one Convention state. It also mentioned that both France and Germany were members of the European Union, which might imply that specific rules on ne bis in idem applied that could offer a higher degree of protection than that strictly required by Article 4 of Protocol No 7. Referring to its case law on Article 53, the Court emphasised that the Convention ‘reinforces, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the protection afforded at national level, without ever imposing limits on it’. 106 In light of the approach discussed in section 3.2 , it could be expected that the Court would continue to hold that the additional guarantees offered by Article 4 of Protocol No 7 applied. However, the Court reached a different conclusion, repeating that Article 4 of Protocol No 7 did not preclude a person from being criminally prosecuted or punished by the courts of a Convention state for an offence for which he or she had been acquitted or convicted by a final judgment in another state, and deciding that the Convention did not apply to the case for that reason. 107 The Court thus accepted that the Convention states alone were responsible for deciding on the degree to which the ne bis in idem principle ought to be guaranteed in their national legal systems.

It is not easy to explain these exceptions to the Court’s reinforcement case law. 108 An explanation for the Krombach approach can possibly be found in the EU law aspect in the case, which might invite a greater degree of judicial restraint so as to allow for states’ need to comply with their EU obligations. This might make it more difficult for the Court to oblige them to provide for additional procedural guarantees. Nevertheless, all exception cases have in common that the states had voluntarily – or based on EU law – decided to offer additional protection and it was possible to find a certain connection to the procedural rights guaranteed by the Convention. Theoretically, therefore, in all of these cases the Court could have applied its reinforcement approach. At this moment, without further clarification in the Court’s judgments, the reasons for not applying the reinforcement approach in these cases remain obscure.

  • 3.4 Reinforcement Interpretation of Article 53 and the Minimum Level of Protection

It can be seen from the analysis provided in sections 3.2 and 3.3 that in many (but not all) cases of additional national protection of fundamental rights, the Court uses Article 53 to ensure that these rights are guaranteed in a procedurally fair and non-discriminatory manner, compatible with the Convention. The interpretation of Article 53 as connecting non-discrimination and procedural guarantees to higher levels of national protection has two important consequences in relation to the need to offer a minimum level of protection.

First, the Court’s reinforcement interpretation of Article 53 echr could cause differences in the protection of Convention rights. 109 Higher levels of protection offered to certain rights at the national level may lead a Convention state to provide for a higher level of guarantees of equality and procedural rights, while a similar level may not be required in states that do not offer any additional protection of rights in the first place. Moreover, it is clear that a state can freely decide to reduce a high level of protection that it previously offered in its legislation. Seen from the perspective of the Court’s need to offer a minimum level of protection perspective, this is, however, not an issue, since accepting more encompassing obligations for some states certainly does not detract from that minimum level, and the level provided after a national reduction of an existing ‘surplus’ must still be consistent with the Convention. Quite to the contrary, the Court’s case law generally may be seen to amplify the national protection of fundamental rights to the standards required in its case law, even for rights that are not as such within the scope of protection of the Convention. 110 This is much in line with a reading of Article 53 as allowing for an additional, high degree of national protection.

Another consequence of the Court’s complementary approach to Article 53 echr is related to its jurisdiction. In cases in which the Court applies reinforcement interpretation, it implicitly considers itself competent to rule on the compatibility of domestic legislation with the guarantees offered by Articles 5, 6, and 14 echr , even if – strictly speaking – the legislation falls outside the scope of the Convention. Consequently, the ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ approach brings along a greater degree of Court supervision of national law. 111 This may sit uneasily with the Court’s need to respect national sovereignty and play a subsidiary role. This might be the reason why it has expressly mentioned in some sensitive cases that they remain within the national authorities’ own remit and responsibility, and why it has refrained from applying its reinforcement approach in such cases. 112 As mentioned in section 3.3 , however, the reasons for the non-application of the approach in some cases are not entirely clear.

  • 4 Conclusion

It is generally accepted that the Convention offers minimum protection to fundamental rights. States are free to provide a higher degree of protection to such rights in their own domestic law, as is expressly confirmed by Article 53 echr . Although this makes Article 53 an interesting provision from the perspective of the respective roles of the Court and the contracting states in protecting the Convention rights, its precise function and meaning have remained underexplored. 113 For that reason, this paper has taken a closer look at it, analysing the Court’s (non-)application of Article 53 and relating it to the notion of minimum Convention rights protection.

Section 2.1 has shown that in many, if not most, of the fundamental rights cases, it is theoretically difficult to defend that a ‘most protective’ clause, such as Article 53, is read as a priority rule. Such a reading would mean that the highest level of protection given to a fundamental right automatically prevails, whether it is the protection given at the international (or echr ) level or that provided by national law. Such an understanding of Article 53 could be troublesome in cases in which a high degree of national protection of a particular fundamental right or constitutional value would clash with the protection of a Convention right.

Indeed, the case law analysis presented in section 2 shows that Article 53 hardly plays a role in such conflicting rights cases. Instead, the Court appears to solve such cases in one of two ways; the Court either avoids the issue of deciding on the relationship between the national and Convention rights altogether, or it assimilates the national right to a fundamental (Convention) right and then engages in a balancing exercise to establish which right could reasonably prevail in the circumstances of the case. Both of these approaches can be seen to be in line with the need to offer a minimum level of Convention protection required by the Convention. This is particularly true given that the Court has firmly held on to its competence to decide which national rights and principles can be regarded as tantamount to fundamental rights and can therefore reasonably be balanced against Convention rights.

The situation is different for a second possible reading of Article 53 echr , which has been termed the ‘reinforcement reading’. As explained in section 3 , if a state voluntarily decides to adopt a higher level of protection than is strictly required by the Convention, the Court – often making express reference to Article 53 echr – usually holds that such additional protection must be granted in accordance with the Convention guarantees of procedural fairness and non-discrimination. This ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ or reinforcement approach allows the Court to offer protection of fundamental rights over and above the minimum level that is strictly required under the Convention. At the same time, it provides the Court with an additional competence to deal with national fundamental rights issues, which might explain why, so far, it has refrained from consistently applying this reinforcement approach in all cases in which this would have been possible.

It can be concluded from this that Article 53 echr may have a useful function in allowing states to adopt and maintain their own, high levels of protection of fundamental rights. It can only have that function, however, if it is not understood as a priority rule, but if the Court’s own ‘reinforcement’ approach is followed. In that application, there is no risk of Article 53 resulting in the undermining of the minimum protection offered by the Convention. To the contrary, in these cases – where no conflict of rights occurs – Article 53 can serve to complement and strengthen the higher national protection by adding specific, procedural, and non-discrimination aspects of Convention protection. Hence, in the reinforcement interpretation, Article 53 can be seen to offer a valuable, flexible treaty basis for integrating national and Convention rights, 114 which may help to give shape to the notion of shared responsibility for the protection of these rights by both the ECtHR and national actors. 115 This may result in an increase in the minimum protection offered to the Convention’s fundamental rights, even if only for those states who decide to offer extra protection from their own motion.

  • Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Kushtrim Istrefi, Luca Pasquet, and Claire Loven for organising the seminar at which the paper was presented and for their (as well as Vassilis Tzevelekos’ and the two anonymous peer reviewers’) valuable comments on a previous version of the paper.

See, for example, R Spano, ‘Universality or Diversity of Human Rights – Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity’ (2014) 14 Human Rights Law Review 487, 493; R Lawson, ‘Beyond the Call of Duty? Domestic Courts and the Standards of the European Court of Human Rights’, in Content and Meaning of National Law in the Context of Transnational Law, H Snijders and S Vogenauer (eds), (Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter 2009) 21, 22–23. See further, for instance, B Çalı, ‘The Purposes of the European Human Rights System: One or Many?’ (2008) 3 European Human Rights Law Review 299; F de Londras and K Dzehtsariou, ‘Managing Judicial Innovation in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2015) 15 Human Rights Law Review 523, 526.

E Brems and J Vrielink, ‘Floors or Ceilings: European Supranational Courts and their Authority in Human Rights Matters’, in Human Rights with a Human Touch: Liber Amicorum Paul Lemmens, A Dewaele and others (eds), (Intersentia 2019) 281, 282. See also, giem Srl and Others v Italy 1828/06 and others (ECtHR, 28 June 2018) Partly Concurring, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para 86.

E Brems, ‘Human Rights: Minimum and Maximum Perspectives’ (2009) 9 Human Rights Law Review 349, 353.

On defining minimum (as opposed to uniform) fundamental rights standards by the ECtHR, see, for example, D McGoldrick, ‘A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and an Argument for its Application by the Human Rights Committee’ (2016) 65 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 21, 36–37; JH Gerards, ‘Uniformity and the European Court of Human Rights’, in Human Rights with a Human Touch: Liber Amicorum Paul Lemmens, A Dewaele and others (eds), (Intersentia 2019); Lawson (n 1) 23.

P Pinto de Albuquerque, ‘Plaidoyer for the European Court of Human Rights’ (2018) 2 European Human Rights Law Review 119, 125. See also, P Lemmens, ‘Reply to the Statement by Mr Jean Marc Sauvé’, in Dialogue Between Judges (European Court of Human Rights 2015) 41.

See, Article 34 echr .

Article 19 echr establishes the Court, while Article 32 echr stipulates that its jurisdiction extends to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. See also, C Rozakis, ‘Is the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights a Procrustean Bed? Or is it a Contribution to the Creation of a European Public Order?’ (2009) 2 UCL Human Rights Review 51.

On the need to do so to avoid the minimum level becoming too low, see, for example, Brems (n 3). On the dynamics of the Court’s development of minimum norms and standards, see, for example, De Londras and Dzehtsariou (n 1); Rozakis (n 7); E Yildiz, ‘A Court with Many Faces: Judicial Characters and Modes of Norm Development in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 31 European Journal of International Law 73; M Iglesias Vila, ‘Subsidiarity, Margin of Appreciation and International Adjudication Within a Cooperative Conception of Human Rights’ (2015) 15 International Journal of Constitutional Law 393, 408; P Łącki, ‘Consensus as a Basis for Dynamic Interpretation of the echr – A Critical Assessment’ (2021) 21 Human Rights Law Review 186.

Such provisions are a common occurrence in international human rights treaties. For some examples, see: European Social Charter (adopted 18 October 1961, entered into force 26 February 1965) ets 35 Article 32; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 999 unts 3 Article 5(2); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 unts 3 Article 5(2); Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 unts 85 Article 1; Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 unts 3 Article 41; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted 21 December, entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 unts 195 Article 23; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2000] oj 326/02 Article 53. They are also known under many other names, such as ‘most favourable treatment clauses’, ‘no-pretext clauses’, ‘savings clauses’, ‘subsidiarity clauses’, or ‘no prejudice clauses’. See, for instance, B Saul, D Kinley, and J Mowbray, The International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press 2014) 240; EA Alkema, ‘The Enigmatic No-Pretext Clause: Article 60 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, in Essays on the Law of Treaties: A Collection of Essays in Honour of Bert Vierdag, J Klabbers and R Lefeber (eds), (Martinus Nijhoff 1998) 41; J Liisberg, ‘Does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Threaten the Supremacy of Community Law?’ (2001) 38 Common Market Law Review 1171, 1186; W Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2015) 902; P Alston and G Quinn, ‘The Nature and Scope of States Parties’ Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (1987) 9 Human Rights Quarterly 156, 208; lfm Besselink, ‘Entrapped by the Maximum Standard: on Fundamental Rights, Pluralism and Subsidiarity in the European Union’ (1998) 35 Common Market Law Review 629, 657. Generally, such clauses are considered to constitute a kind of priority or conflict rule: if there is a conflict between two sets of rules or norms regarding the same material issue, priority needs to be given to the provision that offers strongest protection to a fundamental right. On this, see the sources mentioned above in addition to, for instance, C Van de Heyning, ‘No Place Like Home: Discretionary Space for the Domestic Protection of Fundamental Rights’, in Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts, P Popelier, C van de Heyning, and P van Nuffel (eds), (Intersentia 2011) 72; J De Meyer, ‘Brèves réflexions à propos de l’article 60 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme’, in Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension, F Matscher and H Petzold (eds), (Carl Heymanns 1990) 125.

In doing so, they are bound to comply with the Convention and they are not allowed to fall below the minimum level of protection offered by the ECtHR to the Convention rights. See, Ilnseher v Germany [ gc ] 10211/12 and 27505/14 (ECtHR, 4 December 2018) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, Joined by Judge Dedov, para 68. See also, Pinto de Albuquerque (n 5) 126, and, in comparison, P Mahoney, ‘Universality Versus Subsidiarity in the Strasbourg Case Law on Free Speech: Explaining Some Recent Judgments’ (1997) European Human Rights Law Review 364, 369.

On this particular risk and the lack of guidance that Article 53 offers in this respect, see, Alkema (n 9) and Lawson (n 1).

However, see, De Meyer (n 9); Alkema (n 9); Lawson (n 1); Van de Heyning (n 9).

The main part is based on a case law analysis using the present author’s database of ECtHR judgments and decisions, which contains structured summaries of the Court’s judgments since 2012. Based on the literature, it has been presumed that Article 53 can mainly play a role either in conflicting rights cases or cases in which higher protection is offered but other rights have been insufficiently protected. Other cases in which a national right gives higher protection than the Convention will rarely come before the Court as they are not likely to result in an actionable interference with a Convention right. The database has then been searched for relevant related keywords, including, for instance, ‘minimum’, ‘Article 53’, ‘constitution’, ‘national/domestic protection’, ‘conflict’, and ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’. The search has been supplemented by a systematic hudoc database search for judgments and decisions referring to ‘Article 53’ in their text and a study of judgments and decisions on Article 53 and/or conflicts of rights that have been referred to in the available English language literature. The various judgments and decisions have been analysed to obtain a substantive insight into the type of cases in which domestic protection of fundamental rights seems to clash with the ECtHR’s protection, and how the Court deals with such cases in its reasoning. The results of that analysis are summarily presented in this paper, also building on the author’s previous work in the field and the scholarly literature on the topic. The author’s own work is mostly referred to in footnotes in relevant places, but it should be noted that some of the findings also build on her Dutch-language commentary to Article 53. See, JH Gerards, ‘Artikel 53. Waarborging van bestaande rechten van de mens’, in Sdu Commentaar EVRM – Deel 2, JH Gerards and others (eds), (Sdu 2020) 452 (JH Gerards, ‘Article 53. Respect for Existing Human Rights Guarantees’, in Sdu ECHR Commentary – Part 2 , JH Gerards and others (eds), ( sdu 2020) 452 (author’s translation)).

For these functions, see the sources cited above (n 9).

As is the example famously given for the Netherlands. See further on this, Alkema (n 9).

As Alkema has explained, the travaux préparatoires to the Convention offer very little useful information about the intentions of the drafters in inserting Article 53. See, Alkema (n 9) 42.

See the sources cited above (n 9).

See, Alkema (n 9) 49.

See, in particular, Alkema (n 9); Lawson (n 1).

See, for example, Colombani and Others v France 51279/99 (ECtHR, 25 June 2002) paras 66–68; Otegi Mondragon v Spain 2034/07 (ECtHR, 15 March 2011) para 56; Eon v France 26118/10 (ECtHR, 14 March 2013); Ömür Çağdaş Ersoy v Turkey 19165/19 (ECtHR, 15 June 2021) para 58.

There are a few cases in which Article 53 was invoked, but the Court did not expressly refer to it in its judgment. An example is Gustafsson v Sweden [ gc ] 15573/89 (ECtHR, 25 April 1996), where the Court accepted the Swedish argument that the national protection of labour rights should prevail over the echr protection of negative freedom of association rights without referring to Article 53 echr . The reason for this can be seen in the dissenting opinion by Judge Martens, joined by Judge Matscher, where they claimed that the national interest did not come within the category of ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ as laid down in Article 53 (para 13). See, Liisberg (n 9) 1185.

Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v the Netherlands 8348/78 and 8406/78 (ECmHR, 11 October 1979). On this case, see also, Alkema (n 9) 47.

Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek (n 27) 196.

Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland 14234/88 and 14235/88 (ECtHR, 29 October 1992). See also, Liisberg (n 9) 1184.

Ibid para 78.

Ibid para 79.

See also, Liisberg (n 9) 1183. The Court was criticised for taking this escape route by a few dissenting judges, who stated that the Court should have more substantively replied to the reasoning invoked by the government to explain why they had to conform to the Convention, regardless of their strong national protection of the right to life of the unborn ( Open Door and Dublin Well Woman (n 29) Dissenting Opinion of Judges Pettiti, Russo, and Lopes Rocha, Approved by Judge Bigi).

Alkema (n 9) 48.

Compare sources mentioned earlier (n 1). On the effectiveness principle, see, for instance, JH Gerards, General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2019) 3.

See, with many references, JH Gerards and LR Glas, ‘Access to Justice in the European Convention on Human Rights System’ (2017) 35 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 11–30.

See also Lawson (n 1) 28; Alkema (n 9) 51 and 55.

See the limitation clauses of Articles 8–11, Article 1 Protocol No 1, and Article 2 Protocol No 4 echr . On the notion of the ‘rights and freedom of others’, see further, J Bomhoff, ‘The Rights and Freedoms of Others: The echr and its Peculiar Category of Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights’, in Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights, E Brems (ed), (Intersentia 2008). On the approach the Court can take in this category of conflicting rights cases, see also, O De Schutter and F Tulkens, ‘Rights in Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights as a Pragmatic Institution’, in Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights, E Brems (ed), (Intersentia 2008) 216, section ii .1. It seems no longer entirely true, however, that in such cases the Court relies on a justification rather than a balancing approach (as the authors argued, based on the case law as it stood in 2008), as is shown in the present section.

On the way the Court uses notions such as proportionality, balancing, and necessity in its reasoning, see further, for instance, Gerards (n 35) Chapter 10.

See, among many other authorities and referring to many other sources, E Brems, ‘Positive Subsidiarity and its Implications for the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine’ (2019) 37 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 210; JH Gerards, ‘Dealing with Divergence. Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2018) 18 Human Rights Law Review 495; P Agha (ed), Human Rights Between Law and Politics: The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Post-National Contexts (Bloomsbury/Hart 2017); JH Gerards and E Brems, Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases (Cambridge University Press 2017); LM Huijbers, Process-Based Fundamental Rights Review: Practice, Concept and Theory (Intersentia 2019).

On this general balancing approach in conflicting rights cases, see, for example, S Smet, Resolving Conflicts Between Human Rights: The Judge’s Dilemma (Routledge 2017). For some methods other than ‘pure’ balancing to review the justification for an interference with a fundamental right, see also, Gerards (n 40); Agha (n 40); Gerards and Brems (n 40). On balancing national interests to supranational fundamental rights, see, for example, Besselink (n 9) 639. On ‘reversibility’ (and for criticism of the Court’s approach in this respect), see, I Leigh, ‘Reversibility, Proportionality, and Conflicting Rights. Fernández Martínez v. Spain ’, in When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Rights: Conflict or Harmony?, S Smet and E Brems (eds), (Oxford University Press 2017) 218, 229, explaining that ‘the reversibility test requires the Court to ask whether another identifiable victim would have an admissible Convention claim if the State were to “reverse” the outcome by giving priority to the less favoured right’. This is what the Court seems to do in some of these cases, albeit that it does not – as Leigh advocates – only engage in actual balancing when it is clear that the nationally protected right is a Convention right (at 236), but also if it can be considered similar to a Convention right, as this section will demonstrate.

Ebrahimian v France 64846/11 (ECtHR, 26 November 2015) para 63.

Ibid paras 67 and 71. A similar approach can be seen in SAS v France [ gc ] 43835/11 (ECtHR, 1 July 2014), which concerned the prohibition of wearing face-veils in public places. Even if the Court did not expressly refer to a national constitutional right in its judgment, it did consider that the French government could ‘find it essential to give particular weight in this connection to the interaction between individuals’ (para 141) and held that the law ‘can be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued, namely the preservation of the conditions of “living together” as an element of the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”’ (para 154).

The Court often takes a similar approach in conflicting rights cases where one of the rights is not as such protected by the echr but is recognised in another international human rights treaty, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (n 9). See, for instance, Tlapak and Others v Germany 11308/16 and 11344/16 (ECtHR 22 March 2018) para 79. In those cases, it standardly engages in balancing review, for instance to see if the child’s best interests should have prevailed over the right to family life of a parent. See, Olsson (No 2) v Sweden 13441/87 (ECtHR, 27 November 1992) para 90; Elsholz v Germany [ gc ] 25735/94 (ECtHR, 13 July 2000) para 50. In those cases the Court has neither linked this need for balancing to Article 53 echr nor qualified children’s rights as rights that have to be respected on the national (and therefore the echr ) level because a state has also ratified the UN Children’s Rights Convention.

See sources cited earlier (n 42). For a similar approach, see, Polat v Austria 12886/16 (ECtHR, 20 July 2021) paras 86, 89, and 91, where the Court first found that the freedom of science in Austria is constitutionally guaranteed and the national interpretation of this freedom is closely related to positive obligations the Court has accepted under Articles 2 and 8 echr , and then required the national authorities to balance this constitutional freedom and the rights and freedoms it represented to the Convention rights claimed by the applicants.

For criticism of this lenient approach in freedom of religion related cases, see, for example, Brems and Vrielink (n 2).

A, B and C v Ireland [ gc ] 25579/05 (ECtHR, 16 December 2010).

Ibid para 180.

Ibid para 227.

Ibid para 230.

Ibid para 241.

See further on the approach taken in these sensitive cases, NR Koffeman, Morally Sensitive Issues and Cross-Border Movement in the EU: The Cases of Reproductive Matters and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships (Intersentia 2015) Chapters 2 and 7. This approach can also be observed in similar cases, such as cases on access to the institute of marriage. In many states the institute of marriage is reserved for couples of different sex for reasons of ‘protecting the family in the traditional sense’, which the Court deems, in principle, a legitimate and weighty interest (see, for example, Vallianatos and Others v Greece [ gc ] 29381/09 and 32684/09 (ECtHR, 7 November 2013)). However, it has accepted that an alternative institution should then be available that offers sufficient legal recognition and protection of same-sex partnerships. In finding out if such an alternative is offered, the Court may engage in balancing review. For example, in Hämäläinen v Finland [ gc ] 37359/09 (ECtHR, 16 July 2014), the Finnish legislation required persons who had undergone a gender transition to divorce their original (different-sex) partner and then enter a civil union. Accepting the perceived importance of safeguarding the traditional marriage as an institution, the Court examined if the obligation struck a fair balance between the national interest and that of the individuals concerned and found that it did (paras 81–88).

Bayev v Russia 67667/09, 44092/12, and 56717/12 (ECtHR, 20 June 2017).

Ibid para 50.

Ibid para 65.

In a way, this can be seen to reflect the position that Judges Martens and Matscher already took in their dissenting opinion in the Gustafsson case of 1996, where they reasoned that an interest that is ‘incompatible both with the rule of law and with a proper protection of the individual’s … rights under … [the Convention]. Having created a right that is thus essentially flawed, [the Government] should not be allowed to pass it off as a human right or fundamental freedom within the meaning of those terms in the context of [Article 53 of] the Convention ( Gustafsson (n 26) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Martens, Joined by Judge Matscher).

Bayev (n 53) paras 77–82.

Ibid para 83.

A similar approach was taken in Beizaras and Levickas v Lithuania 41288/15 (ECtHR, 14 January 2020), where national courts had qualified a Facebook post containing a photo showing two kissing men as ‘eccentric behaviour’ and upheld the refusal to constitute an investigation into the many negative and threatening comments on the post by pointing at the great importance that was attached in Lithuania to ‘traditional family values’. The Court found that ‘[i]n the present case, although the Klaipėda District Court cited the alleged incompatibility between maintaining family values as the foundation of society and acknowledging the social acceptance of homosexuality, the Court sees no reason to consider those elements as incompatible, especially in view of the growing general tendency to view relationships between same-sex couples as falling within the concept of “family life”’ (para 122). For that reason, it discounted this interest as a factor relevant to its judgment on the reasonableness of the lack of a proper investigation.

Zhdanov and Others v Russia 12200/08 and others (ECtHR, 16 July 2019) para 119.

Ibid para 157.

Ibid paras 158–159.

Fedotova and Others v Russia 40792/10 and others (ECtHR, 13 July 2021).

Ibid paras 33 and 35.

Ibid para 54.

Ibid para 55.

See also, Van de Heyning (n 9) 68.

Compare the argument made by Brems and Vrielink (n 2).

See, in comparison, Leigh (n 41) 228.

Compare, Van de Heyning (n 9) 81.

See, in comparison, Alkema (n 9) 55.

See also, Lawson (n 1); Van de Heyning (n 9); Gerards (n 35); De Meyer (n 9) 129; Alkema (n 9) 47.

See, for example, ECtHR, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a Fair Trial (Civil Limb)’ (updated 31 December 2020): < www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf > paras 66–76.

See, for example, Shamoyan v Armenia 18499/08 (ECtHR, 7 July 2015) para 29. For criminal matters, this gap has been filled by Article 2 of Protocol No 7, but this Protocol has not been signed by all Convention states, nor does it provide for the same right in civil and administrative proceedings.

For example, see, Di Martino and Molinari v Italy 15931/15 and 16459/15 (ECtHR, 25 March 2021) para 3; Budak v Turkey 69762/12 (ECtHR, 16 February 2021) para 87.

Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v Iceland [ gc ] 68273/14 and 68271/14 (ECtHR, 22 December 2020) para 93.

Micallef v Malta 17056/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2008) paras 44–45.

Ibid para 45 (emphasis added by the author). See more recently, Di Martino and Molinary (n 76) para 39.

For example, Gajtani v Switzerland 43730/07 (ECtHR, 9 September 2014) para 74; Shamoyan (n 75). For a slightly different formulation, see, for example, Yevdokimov and Others v Russia 27236/05 and others (ECtHR, 16 February 2016) para 34.

For example, Gajtani (n 80) para 74.

See sources cited earlier (n 80).

EB v France [ gc ] 43546/02 (ECtHR, 22 January 2008). On this case, see also, Lawson (n 1) 24; JH Gerards, ‘Judicial Minimalism and “Dependency”: Interpretation of the European Convention in a Pluralist Europe’, in Fundamental Rights and Principles, M van Roosmalen and others (eds), (Intersentia 2013) 73; Van de Heyning (n 9) 74.

See, for example, Fretté v France 36515/97 (ECtHR, 26 February 2002). See also, eb (n 83) para 41.

eb (n 83) para 49.

Arguably the additional protection offered in Article 14 cases such as eb is not (only) due to the Court’s reinforcement reading of Article 53, but it is (also) related to the Court’s wide ‘ambit’ approach in these cases (on that approach, see, for instance, OM Arnardóttir, ‘Discrimination as a Magnifying Lens: Scope and Ambit Under Article 14 and Protocol No. 12’, in Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights, E Brems and JH Gerards (eds), (Cambridge University Press 2013) 330–349). However, it is still notable that the Court expressly referred to Article 53 in its reasoning and, apparently, did see a function for it. Considering the similarity of the situation in eb to that in the Article 6 cases, it is likely that the Court – by including its reference to Article 53 – hinted at the same ‘reinforcement’ function that it has accepted in these procedural cases.

Elsewhere I have also termed this the ‘dependency’ approach. See, Gerards (n 83) 74. On this notion and other, similar notions (such as the ‘latex’ nature of the Court’s approach), see also, Lawson (n 1) 26; Koffeman (n 52) 637. The Court has equally applied this method in cases on social security and social benefits. See, for example, Carson v the United Kingdom [ gc ] 42184/05 (ECtHR, 16 March 2010) paras 64–65, and more recently, Molla Sali v Greece [ gc ] 20452/14 (ECtHR, 19 December 2018) para 123; Popović and Others v Serbia 26944/13 and others (ECtHR, 30 June 2020) para 49).

For example, Tysiąc v Poland 5410/03 (ECtHR, 20 March 2007); Schalk and Kopf v Austria 30141/04 (ECtHR, 24 June 2010); pb and js v Austria 18984/02 (ECtHR, 22 July 2010); rr v Poland 27617/04 (ECtHR, 26 May 2011); X and Others v Austria [ gc ] 19010/07 (ECtHR, 19 February 2013); Pajić v Croatia 68453/13 (ECtHR, 23 February 2016) para 80; Aldeguer Tomás v Spain 35214/09 (ECtHR, 14 June 2016) para 76; ah and Others v Russia 6033/13 (ECtHR, 17 January 2017) para 381. See also, Gerards (n 83) 82–83.

For example, om v Hungary 9912/15 (ECtHR, 5 July 2016) para 47.

Suso Musa v Malta 42337/12 (ECtHR, 23 July 2013); Aboya Boa Jean v Malta 62676/16 (ECtHR, 2 April 2019). In a different context, see, Norik Poghoshyan v Armenia 63106/12 (ECtHR, 22 October 2020).

Suso Musa (n 90) para 90.

Ibid para 97.

Suso Musa (n 90) para 107.

Filat v Moldova 11657/16 (ECtHR, 7 December 2021).

Ibid para 31.

Ibid para 32.

Ibid para 33.

Borg v Malta 39783/15 (ECtHR, dec, 5 September 2017).

Ibid para 35.

Ibid para 37.

It should be noted, moreover, that the Court reverted to its previous approach in Norik Poghoshyan (n 90), which also concerned the right to compensation under Article 5(5) in relation to a case of detention that would not have been unlawful under the Court’s own case law on Article 5(1) echr (para 32). Noting that the applicant’s detention ‘was rendered unlawful within the meaning of domestic law following his acquittal and considered as such by the domestic courts’, the Court concluded ‘that, in the particular circumstances of the case, a breach of the guarantees of Article 5 § 1 has been established in substance at the domestic level and that, consequently, Article 5 § 5 is applicable to the applicant’s case’ (para 36).

For example, Demin v Russia 66314/11 (ECtHR, dec, 6 October 2020) para 53.

Krombach v France 67521/14 (ECtHR, dec, 20 February 2018).

Ibid para 39.

Ibid para 40.

Even more so because Borg seems to have been a single deviation. See, Demin (n 104).

Put differently, it can be qualified as contrary to (Van de Heyning (n 9) 77) or as an exception to or limitation of (Gerards (n 83) 74) the notion of autonomous interpretation.

The approach thus operates ‘one way only’ (see, Lawson (n 1) 27). An indirect consequence can be (but not necessarily is) a gradual harmonisation or convergence of national law, as has been shown to exist by Koffeman for cases on same-sex unions and reproductive rights (see, Koffeman (n 52) 643).

Compare, JH Gerards, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the National Courts – Giving Shape to the Notion of ‘Shared Responsibility’’, in Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Judgments of the ECtHR in National Case Law: A Comparative Analysis, JH Gerards and J Fleuren (eds), (Intersentia 2014) 13, 50.

As mentioned in section 4.3, however, this is speculative, as it is not clear why the Court has deviated from its reinforcement approach in the cases discussed in that section.

Alkema (n 9).

See, Alkema (n 9) 51.

See also, Gerards (n 111).

Content Metrics

Cover European Convention on Human Rights Law Review

  • 3.3 Exceptions to the ‘Reinforcement Interpretation’ of Article 53 echr?

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice

Copyright © 2016-2023

Copyright © 2016-2024

  • [66.249.64.20|185.80.151.41]
  • 185.80.151.41

Character limit 500 /500

  • Search Menu
  • Advance articles
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submission Site
  • Open Access Options
  • About Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertising and Corporate Services
  • Journals Career Network
  • Self-Archiving Policy
  • Dispatch Dates
  • Journals on Oxford Academic
  • Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

  • The dormant sleeper awakens
  • The origins of narrow interpretation
  • The effect of narrow interpretation on Article 53(a) EPC
  • Signs of change
  • The President's submission in WARF
  • The narrow path: a priori no longer
  • < Previous

Is Article 53(a) EPC still of narrow interpretation?

  • Article contents
  • Figures & tables
  • Supplementary Data

Ella O'Sullivan, Is Article 53(a) EPC still of narrow interpretation?, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , Volume 7, Issue 9, September 2012, Pages 680–690, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jps115

  • Permissions Icon Permissions

Ella O' Sullivan is attached to University College Cork in Ireland where she has been completing her Ph. D. on the patentability of biotechnological inventions in Europe.

The ordre public and morality exclusion under Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention as supplemented by Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions has traditionally been of limited application. However, the recent decisions of G2/06 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) in the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office and C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV in the Court of Justice of the European Union suggest a new key role for the exclusion in relation to biotechnological inventions.

In spite of this, exceptions to patentability in the European Patent Convention, including Article 53(a) EPC, have conventionally been of narrow interpretation. But the ubiquity of this approach has been rejected by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in relation to the exclusion of diagnostic and therapeutic methods under Article 53(c) EPC.

This article critically examines whether in the aftermath of WARF and Brüstle, Article 53(a) EPC is still capable of narrow interpretation or whether a new broader approach to the exclusion is necessary.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

  • About Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
  • JIPLP Weblog
  • Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

  • Online ISSN 1747-1540
  • Print ISSN 1747-1532
  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Institutional account management
  • Rights and permissions
  • Get help with access
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

  • IAS Questions
  • IAS Polity Questions
  • What Is The Article 53

What is the Article 53?

Article 53 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Executive power of the Union. The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution.

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

Further Reading:

  • President of India – Article 52-62
  • Union Executive & State Executive

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

what is article 53

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

  • Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Live Support

Constitution of India

Constitution of India

Executive Power of the Union

(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

(3) Nothing in this article shall—

(a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority; or

(b) prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.

what is article 53

Article 42, Draft Constitution of India 1948

(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and may be exercised by him in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of India shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

(3) Nothing in this article shall-

(a) Be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority, or

(b) Prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.

Article 53, Constitution of India 1950

⁠(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command or the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

⁠(3) Nothing in this article shall —

Draft Article 42 was debated by the Constituent Assembly on 10 December 1948 and 16 October 1949 . The Draft Article placed the executive power of the Union with the President of India.

One member proposed to make it explicit in the Article that the President’s executive power was subject to the advice and help of the Union Government. This would reiterate and make it clear that the Assembly had adopted a parliamentary system of government and not a presidential one.

Another member wanted to include ‘ on behalf of the people of India ‘ in the first clause to signal that sovereignty and popular will lay with the people. Unlike the Government of India Act 1935, he continued , that enabled the Governor-General to exercise executive power on behalf of the ‘King-Emperor of India’, the Indian Constitution should mention that executive power was exercised on behalf of the people.

There was another proposal that exhaustively listed out all the powers and responsibilities of the President. The member who proposed this argued that for a new nation like India, the President’s powers must be clearly laid out in the Constitution to avoid any ambiguities. Several members opposed this move: a member of the Drafting Committee pointed out that the proposal went against the decision of the Assembly to adopt a parliamentary form of democracy.

The Assembly adopted the Draft Article on 10 December 1948 without any amendments. However, the Constituent Assembly reopened discussions on 16 October 1949 .

The Drafting Committee moved a minor amendment which enabled the President to exercise his power even through his subordinates. Some members felt that this amendment was redundant and unnecessary . They argued that it was understood that the President would be exercising his power through his ‘agents’. As one member put it ‘ This attempt to clarify things is grossly exaggerating the idea of going into details ’. The members of the Drafting Committee responded by highlighting that the President would not really exercise his executive power himself; He would ‘ simply exercise them at the dictation of other people who are responsible to the legislature ’ and the amendment embodied and clarified this scheme.

The Assembly accepted the amendment and adopted the Draft Article.

Sports | Navy women’s basketball upsets Loyola…

Share this:.

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Baltimore Sun eNewspaper

  • College Sports
  • High School Sports
  • Horse Racing

SUBSCRIBER ONLY

Sports | navy women’s basketball upsets loyola maryland, 53-51, as kate samson scores game-winner.

what is article 53

Too often this season, the Navy women’s basketball team hasn’t been able to make enough plays down the stretch to pull out close games.

That wasn’t the case Wednesday night in Annapolis, and an uplifting result provided coach Tim Taylor with an encouraging sign that his young, inexperienced team is growing up and learning how to win.

Sophomore center Kate Samson scored the go-ahead basket with 2.6 seconds remaining then played solid defense to deny the potential game-winning shot on the last possession as Navy upset Loyola Maryland, 53-51, at Alumni Hall.

Sophomore guard Toni Papahronis scored the tying basket with 41 seconds left then grabbed a big defensive rebound on the other end for the Midshipmen, who secured their most significant victory of the Patriot League campaign to date.

“I definitely think they’re growing up. We made a lot of winning plays tonight,” Taylor said. “We’ve always had confidence because we’ve been in games with everybody. Wins like this add another layer of confidence.”

Freshman guard Kyah Smith was aggressive taking the ball to the basket throughout in scoring 17 points and also dished off six assists to lead Navy (10-15, 6-8), which overcame a three-point deficit over the final minute and a half. Samson posted a double-double with 12 points and 10 rebounds for the Mids, who scored 23 points off 21 turnovers by the Greyhounds.

Freshman guard Kimmie Hicks came off the bench to score 14 points to lead Loyola (13-12, 8-6), which came into the contest tied for first place in the Patriot League and riding a four-game winning streak. Graduate student forward Ava Therien netted 11 points for the Hounds, who are now in a three-way tie for second.

Navy plebe point guard Kyah Smith dribbles past Mount St. Mary's defender Jo Raflo during Wednesday night's game at Alumni Hall.

“That was a much-needed win. I think we played a really good game overall. I’m really glad we pulled it out and beat a really good team,” said Smith, who drove the ball downhill and wound up going 4-for-4 from the free throw line as a result.

“I think in previous games I was settling for too many jump shots, so the biggest thing was to get to the rim.”

Freshman guard Zanai Barnett-Gay had 10 points and three steals for Navy, which is tied with Bucknell for ninth place in the 10-team league. At present, the Mids would win the tiebreaker by virtue of having beaten the Bison in late January.

Navy is vastly improved, evidenced by the fact it has picked up four of its six conference victories since Jan. 31. The Midshipmen are trying to avoid playing in one of two first-round games of the Patriot League Tournament.

“We know we can play with any team in the league and could easily be No. 1. I think we can win the whole thing,” Smith said. “It’s just a matter of whether or not we’re going to play our best basketball.”

Indeed, this season’s two meetings between Navy and Loyola shows there is not much difference between the top and bottom of the Patriot League standings.

The Midshipmen played the Greyhounds virtually even for the better part of 80 minutes during the two contests and could easily have swept the regular-season series.

In the first matchup between the teams at Reitz Arena, Navy led for more than 35 minutes before Loyola used a late comeback to pull out a 70-67 victory. The Mids fell victim to a frantic full-court press as the Greyhounds forced four turnovers and allowed only four made baskets over the final five minutes to erase a seven-point deficit in the fourth quarter.

“What a season it is for the Patriot League. The parity is really fun,” Loyola coach Danielle O’Banion said. “Sometimes it’s fun in a good way and other times, like tonight, it’s fun in a bad way.”

Standout junior forward Lexi Therien totaled eight points and 11 rebounds for Loyola but sat out almost the entire fourth quarter because she had four personal fouls. The Greyhounds made just 3 of 12 field goal attempts in the final frame and Taylor cited the Midshipmen’s ability to get stops as the key to pulling out the close contest.

“A lot of it came down to the fact we defended. Over the last six or seven games, when we defend, we win. If we can hold teams to less than 60 points, we usually win. I certainly thought we defended well tonight,” Taylor said.

Navy employed a full-court trapping press to disrupt Loyola, which spent valuable time getting the ball upcourt. O’Banion acknowledged the tactic worked as it forced the Greyhounds to rush their offensive sets.

“It made us uncomfortable for sure. We were operating with a shorter shot clock,” the third-year coach said. “Navy did a great job defensively and found some things that worked for them offensively. At the end of the day, it was a game of moments and I thought we had some moments that we missed that we would like to get back.”

Samson made two free throws with 1:23 to go to cut the deficit to 51-49. On the ensuing possession, a bad pass along the baseline by Kelly Ratigan was picked off by Smith.

Navy ran a play to get the ball to the 6-foot-4 Samson, who had a decided height advantage in the post. Samson missed a short turnaround, but Papahronis grabbed the offensive rebound and made an acrobatic layup to tie the score at 51.

“We wanted to go inside to Kate because we had an advantage. She missed the shot and Toni came flying in and grabbed the rebound, got a step through and made the shot,” Taylor said. “That was huge because if you miss that one then they’re going to run 30 more seconds off the clock and it really changes things. Once it’s a tie game you have a different mindset.”

Ratigan badly missed a jumper from the wing and Papahronis snagged the rebound. Taylor called a 30-second timeout to set up a play and once again went inside to Samson, who made a shot in the paint to give Navy the lead.

O’Banion quickly called timeout and inserted Lexi Therien back into the game for the final possession. Because of the timeout, the Greyhounds had a sideline inbounds pass on their own end of the floor and threw the ball directly to Therien in the post.

Samson put her hands straight up in the air to force the 6-1 Therien to shoot over her and the attempt came up short, hitting the underside of the rim.

“When [Therien] came in we knew they were going to try to throw it to the block. We told Kate to stay on the high side and wall up and she did what she was supposed to do,” Taylor said.

Navy at Holy Cross

Saturday, noon

Stream: ESPN+

Boston University at Loyola Maryland

Saturday, 5 p.m.

More in Sports

Five-star recruit Derik Queen's commitment is second-year Maryland coach Kevin Willard's biggest recruitment victory yet — and one of the biggest in program history.

College Sports | Derik Queen, a 5-star recruit from Baltimore, commits to Maryland men’s basketball

A 81-62 victory over Rutgers marked the latest point of a run that coach Brenda Frese hopes slingshots the Terps into the NCAA Tournament.

College Sports | Maryland women’s basketball cruises past Rutgers, 81-62, to continue NCAA Tournament push

After a "series of unfortunate events last year," Orioles prospect Kyle Stowers is ready to bounce back and compete for a roster spot.

Baltimore Orioles | Orioles prospect Kyle Stowers hoping to bounce back from ‘most challenging year of my career’

Hereford's girls track team took back a state championship trophy it hadn't won since 2022, while the boys won their first since 1980.

High School Sports | Hereford indoor track and field sweeps Class 2A state titles; Digital Harbor boys top 3A

  • Election 2024
  • Entertainment
  • Newsletters
  • Photography
  • Press Releases
  • Israel-Hamas War
  • Russia-Ukraine War
  • Latin America
  • Middle East
  • Asia Pacific
  • AP Top 25 College Football Poll
  • Movie reviews
  • Book reviews
  • Financial Markets
  • Business Highlights
  • Financial wellness
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Social Media

Death of Chilean poet Pablo Neruda days after 1973 coup should be reinvestigated, court rules

FILE - Nobel Prize-winning poet Pablo Neruda sits in Paris in October 1971. An appeals court in Chile’s capital ruled Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024, that the case of Neruda's death be reopened, saying the investigation has not been exhausted and new steps could help clarify the cause of his death. Last December, a judge rejected a request by Neruda's nephew to reopen the case to look for other causes of death than cancer, which is what is listed on the poet’s death certificate. (AP Photo/Michel Lipchitz, File)

FILE - Nobel Prize-winning poet Pablo Neruda sits in Paris in October 1971. An appeals court in Chile’s capital ruled Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024, that the case of Neruda’s death be reopened, saying the investigation has not been exhausted and new steps could help clarify the cause of his death. Last December, a judge rejected a request by Neruda’s nephew to reopen the case to look for other causes of death than cancer, which is what is listed on the poet’s death certificate. (AP Photo/Michel Lipchitz, File)

  • Copy Link copied

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — The death of Nobel laureate Pablo Neruda days after Chile’s 1973 military coup should be reinvestigated, an appeals court ruled Tuesday, saying new steps could help clarify what killed the poet.

Last December, a judge rejected a request by Neruda’s nephew to reopen the case to look for causes other than cancer, which was listed on his death certificate. The nephew, Rodolfo Reyes, said forensic experts from Canada, Denmark and Chile had found evidence pointing to Neruda being poisoned.

Reyes said forensic tests carried out in Danish and Canadian labs indicated Neruda’s body had “a great quantity of Cloristridium botulinum, which is incompatible with human life.” The toxin can cause nervous system paralysis and death.

The ruling was the latest turn in one of the great debates of post-coup Chile. The long-stated official position has been that Neruda died of complications from prostate cancer, but his driver argued for decades that he was poisoned.

FILE - In this October 21, 1971 file photo, Nobel Prize winning poet Pablo Neruda sits in Paris France. Neruda was awarded his Nobel in 1971. Forensic experts have determined that Chilean poet Pablo Neruda was poisoned, Rodolfo Reyes, the Nobel Prize winner’s nephew, said on Monday, Feb. 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Michel Lipchitz, File)

In December, a judge ruled that the forensic results had already been carried out or were “late,” and didn’t lead anywhere.

Several years earlier, other international forensics experts had already rejected the official cause of death as cachexia, or weakness and wasting of the body due to chronic illness — in his case, cancer. But at that time they said they had not determined what did kill Neruda.

On Tuesday, the appeals court in Santiago unanimously revoked the judge’s resolution and ordered that the procedures requested by the nephew be done. These steps include a calligraphic analysis of the death certificate, a meta-analysis of the test results carried out by foreign agencies, and subpoenas for statements from Chile’s documentation project and an expert on Clostridium botulinum.

Neruda was best known for his love poems and accumulated dozens of prizes, including the 1971 Nobel Prize for Literature.

He was also a Communist Party member and friend of Chile’s President Salvador Allende, whose government was toppled in the coup that put Gen. Augusto Pinochet in power. Allende killed himself rather than surrender.

Neruda was traumatized by the military takeover and the persecution and killing of his friends. He planned to go into exile in Mexico, where he would have been an influential voice against the dictatorship.

But a day before his planned departure, he was taken by ambulance to a clinic in Santiago, where he died Sept. 23, 1973.

The relative of a person who was executed during Chile's dictatorship places a flower on the east side door of La Moneda presidential palace, through which the body of President Salvador Allende was carried by soldiers and firefighters 50 years ago after the military coup that toppled his government in Santiago, Chile, Monday, Sept. 11, 2023. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)

Suspicions that the dictatorship had a hand in his death have remained long after Chile returned to democracy in 1990.

Neruda’s body was exhumed in 2013 to determine the cause of his death, but those tests showed no toxic agents or poisons in his bones. His family and driver had demanded further investigation.

In 2015, Chile’s government said it was “highly probable that a third party” was responsible for Neruda’s death. In 2017, authorities reported the discovery of fragments of the Clostridium botulinum bacteria in skeletal remains and teeth.

Neruda was reburied in his favorite home overlooking the Pacific Coast.

Follow AP’s Latin America coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

what is article 53

Learn Basics of Crypto... Why & How of it" by Hemant Mundhra Enroll Now

Social login / register with:.

what is article 53

Don't have account? Register Now

Report Abuse

Share with:, article 53 - non-recoverable input tax.

Non-recoverable Input Tax

1. Input Tax shall be non-recoverable if it is incurred by a Person in respect of the following Taxable Supplies:

a. Where the Person is not a Government Entity as specified in a Cabinet Decision in accordance with Article (10) and (57) of the Decree-Law, and there is provision of entertainment services to anyone not employed by the Person, including customers, potential customers, officials, or shareholder or other owners or investors.

b. Where a motor vehicle was purchased, rented or leased for use in the Business and is available for personal use by any Person.

c. Where Goods or Services were purchased to be used by employees for no charge to them and for their personal benefit including the provision of entertainment services, except in the following cases:

1) where it is a legal obligation to provide those Services or Goods to those employees under any applicable labour law in the State or Designated Zone.

2) it is a contractual obligation or documented policy to provide those services or goods to those employees in order that they may perform their role and it can be proven to be normal business practice in the course of employing those people;

3) where the provision of goods or services is a deemed supply under the provisions of the DecreeLaw.

2. For the purposes of this Article:

a. The phrase “entertainment services” shall mean hospitality of any kind, including the provision of accommodation, food and drinks which are not provided in a normal course of a meeting, access to shows or events, or trips provided for the purposes of pleasure or entertainment.

b. The phrase “motor vehicle” shall mean a road vehicle which is designed or adapted for the conveyance of no more than 10 people including the driver. A motor vehicle shall exclude a truck, forklift, hoist or other similar vehicle.

3. Provision of catering and accommodation services shall not be treated as entertainment services where it is provided by a transportation service operator, such as an airline, to passengers who have been delayed.

4. A motor vehicle shall not be treated as being available for private use if it is within any of the following categories:

a. a taxi licensed by the competent authority within the State;

b. a motor vehicle registered as, and used for purposes of an emergency vehicle, including by police, fire, ambulance, or similar emergency service;

c. a vehicle which is used in a vehicle rental business where it is rented to a customer.

GCC FinTax

GCC App for Android & iOS

GCC FinTax is a community for Tax and Finance professionals from GCC to share knowledge, learn and network.

Download Android app

Get latest updates from GccFinTax.com

       ,    .

what is article 53

  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC: Latest News, IAS, IPS, UPSC Preparation

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

The President of India (Articles 52-62)

Last updated on August 17, 2023 by Alex Andrews George

president of india

Part V of the Constitution (The Union) under Chapter I (The Executive) lists out the qualification, election, and impeachment of the President of India.

The  President of India is the head of state of the Republic of India. The President is the formal head of the executive, legislature, and judiciary of India and is also the commander-in-chief of the Indian Armed Forces.

Although Article 53 of the Constitution of India states that the President can exercise his or her powers directly or by subordinate authority, with few exceptions, all of the executive authority vested in the President are, in practice, exercised by the Council of Ministers (CoM).

Table of Contents

Part V The Union

Chapter i the executive, article 52: the president of india.

There shall be a President of India.

Article 53: Executive Power of the Union

(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him by this Constitution.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union Shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

ClearIAS Online Courses

(3) Nothing in this article shall – (a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority; or (b) prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.

Article 54: Election of President

The President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of –

(a) the elected members of both Houses of Parliament; and (b) the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Explanation: In this article and article 55, “State” includes the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory of Pondicherry.

Article 55: Manner of Election of President

(1) As far as practicable, there shall be uniformity in the scale of representation of the different States at the election of the President.

(2) For the purpose of securing such uniformity among the States inter se as well as parity between the States as a whole and the Union, the number of votes to which each elected member of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly of each state is entitled to cast at such election shall be determined in the following manner; –

(a) every elected member of the Legislative Assembly of a State shall have as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the State by the total number of the elected members of the Assembly; (b) if, after taking the said multiples of one thousand, the remainder is not less than five hundred, then the vote of each member referred to in sub-clause (a) shall be further increased by one; (c) each elected member of either House of Parliament shall have such number of votes as may be obtained by dividing the total number of votes assigned to the members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States under sub-clauses (a) and (b) by the total number of the elected members of both Houses of Parliament, fractions exceeding one-half being counted as one and other fractions being disregarded.

(3) The election of the President shall be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation using the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot.

Explanation: In this article, the expression “population” means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published:

  • Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 census.

Article 56: Term of office of President

(1) The President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:

Provided that –

(a) the President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Vice-President, resign his office;

(b) the President may, for violation of the Constitution, be removed from office by impeachment in the manner provided in Article 61.

(c) the President shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office.

(2) Any resignation addressed to the Vice-President under clause (a) of the proviso to clause (1) shall forthwith be communicated by him to the Speaker of the House of the People.

Article 57: Eligibility for re-election

A person who holds, or who has held, office as President shall, subject to the other provisions of this Constitution be eligible for re-election to that office.

Article 58: Qualifications for Election as President

(1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he –

(a) is a citizen of India; (b) has completed the age of thirty-five years, and (c) is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.

(2) A person shall not be eligible for election as President if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.

Explanation: For this article, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the Union or the Governor of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State.

Article 59: Conditions of President’s office

(1) The President shall not be a member of either House of Parliament or a House of the Legislature of any State, and if a member of either House of Parliament or a House of the Legislature of any State is elected President, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in that House on the date on which he enters upon his office as President.

(2) The President shall not hold any other office of profit.

(3) The President shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of his official residences and shall be also entitled to such emoluments, allowances, and privileges as may be determined by Parliament by law and until provision in that behalf is so made, such emoluments, allowances, and privileges as are specified in the Second Schedule.

(4) The emoluments and allowances of the President shall not be diminished during his term of office.

Article 60: Oath or affirmation by the President

Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court available, an oath or affirmation in the following form, that is to say – “I, A.B., do swear in the name of God / solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the function of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.”

Article 61: Procedure for Impeachment of the President

(1) When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament.

(2) No such charge shall be preferred unless – (a) the proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at least fourteen days’ notice in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and (b) such a resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House.

(3) When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.

(4) If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which the resolution is so passed.

Article 62: Time of holding election to fill a vacancy in the office of President and the term of office or person elected to fill a casual vacancy

(1) An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of office of President shall be completed before the expiration of the term.

(2) An election to fill a vacancy in the office of President occurring because of his death, resignation or removal, or otherwise shall be held as soon as possible after, and in no case later than six months from, the date of occurrence of the vacancy; and the person elected to fill the vacancy shall, subject to the provisions of article 56, be entitled to hold office for the full term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.

 Info-Bits Related to the President of India

what is article 53

  • The salary of the Indian President is Rs.5 lakh. Until 2017, the President used to get Rs 1.50 lakh per month. In Budget 2018, it was increased to Rs 5 lakh per month.
  • In addition to the salary, the President receives many other allowances and free facilities which include free medical, housing, and treatment facilities (whole life).
  • The Government of India spends around Rs.2.25 crore rupees annually on other expenses like the President’s housing, staff, food, and hosting of guests.
  • Indian President’s salary is 7000$x12=84,000$, which is much lower when compared to the US President’s salary of 4,00,000$.
  • The president of the United States of America is also indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College but to a four-year term. He is one of only two nationally elected federal officers, the other being the Vice President of the United States. (In total, there are 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, and the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.)
  • Under The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, of 1952, a candidate, to be nominated for the office of president of India needs 50 electors as proposers and 50 electors as seconders for his or her name to appear on the ballot.
  • The general principle in the Indian Presidential election is that the total number of votes cast by Members of Parliament equals the total number of votes cast by State Legislators.
  • There are a total of 776 voters in both Houses of Parliament. The Electoral College also consisted of 4120 MLAs in the states.
  • The formula to determine the value of the vote of an MLA = Population of the state  ÷ ( No. of M.L.A.s in the state X 1000).
  • The formula to determine the value of the vote of an MP = Total value votes assigned to all the M.L.A.s  ÷  Total number of MPs.
  • Each MP had a vote value of 708 in the Presidential Election of 2012.
  • Legislators from larger states cast more votes than those from smaller states.
  • If a state has few legislators, then each legislator has more votes; if a state has many legislators, then each legislator has fewer votes.
  • JFYI: The President of India moves around in a custom built heavily armored Mercedes Benz S600 Pullman Guard (which costs around Rs. 12 Crore).
  • Nominated members cannot vote in the Presidential election. But they can participate in President’s impeachment.
  • PS: Nominated members can participate in Vice-President’s election and removal.
  • MLAs are involved in the Presidential election, but they have no role in President’s impeachment. President’s impeachment resolution requires a special majority of both houses of the parliament to pass.

Powers of the President of India

Indian President at Rashtrapathi Bhavan

The powers of the Indian President can be broadly classified under 8 headings. They are :

  • Legislative
  • Executive or Appointment powers
  • Judicial powers
  • Financial powers
  • Diplomatic powers
  • Military powers
  • Pardoning Powers
  • Emergency powers

There are articles outside Chapter 1 of Part V relating to the powers of the President of India like Article 72 and Articles 352-360. We shall discuss in detail each of them later.

Article 72: Power of President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit, or commute sentences in certain cases

(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any persons convicted of any offense – (a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial; (b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offense against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death. (2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court-martial. (3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the time being in force.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Follow ClearIAS!

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

# Trending Now on ClearIAS

Csat course.

Join CSAT Course

Current Affairs Course

Join Current Affairs Course

  • UPSC Prelims Test Series

Join Prelims Test Series

UPSC Prelims Marks Booster

Join Prelims Marks Booster

Join ClearIAS Courses!

What makes ClearIAS special: Explore ClearIAS Courses

About Alex Andrews George

Alex Andrews George is a mentor, author, and social entrepreneur. Alex is the founder of ClearIAS and one of the expert Civil Service Exam Trainers in India.

He is the author of many best-seller books like 'Important Judgments that transformed India' and 'Important Acts that transformed India'.

A trusted mentor and pioneer in online training , Alex's guidance, strategies, study-materials, and mock-exams have helped many aspirants to become IAS, IPS, and IFS officers.

Reader Interactions

what is article 53

May 6, 2015 at 5:19 pm

thanks for your nice effort

what is article 53

May 31, 2020 at 4:46 pm

what is article 53

August 19, 2016 at 11:53 pm

Thanks for sharing such useful information

what is article 53

October 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm

Each and every aspect is deeply explained..thanx

what is article 53

November 5, 2016 at 5:49 pm

thanks a lot

what is article 53

January 17, 2017 at 7:26 pm

I’m gonna pass. Thanks much. :)))

what is article 53

September 25, 2021 at 10:57 am

You’ll gonna top. Believe in yourself

what is article 53

February 24, 2017 at 10:10 pm

Thank you given for information

what is article 53

March 12, 2017 at 2:34 pm

Thanks a lot

what is article 53

April 25, 2017 at 12:09 pm

under which article president of india will give willful resignation from this post and to who it may concerned..?

what is article 53

July 15, 2018 at 7:11 pm

Under article 56 The President should give her/his resignation in writing to Vice-President of India

what is article 53

May 3, 2017 at 11:05 pm

The President is the formal head of the executive, legislature and judiciary of India.

Can you please explain how he is the head of legislature and judiciary?

what is article 53

June 24, 2017 at 12:05 am

Because he is head of all executives and also can say head of profit of office

what is article 53

June 1, 2020 at 12:02 pm

According to Article 52 of Constitution of India, the President is the head of state of the Republic of India. The President is the formal head of the executive, legislature and judiciary of India .

June 1, 2020 at 12:03 pm

According Article 124, the president is duty bound to enforce the decrees of Supreme Court.

June 1, 2020 at 12:07 pm

The President bears special responsibility to see that the government is run on constitutional lines; He is ’Guardian of Constitution’ . If the President is thus asked to interfere by Citizens for protection of the Constitution, ”there is no reason why he should not exercise his powers” especially when he is bound by the oath.

June 1, 2020 at 12:08 pm

The primary Constitutional duty of the president is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the law of India as made part of his oath (Article 60 of Indian constitution). … over the executive and legislative entities of India shall be used in accordance to uphold the constitution.

what is article 53

March 3, 2022 at 6:26 pm

For implementation of any law, the President’s accent is mandatory as he is person whose accent makes a bill an Act. He has the power to reject a bill except few cases and hence becomes an integral part of legislaure so called formal head of legislaure. As far as the judiciary is concerned, the President appoints the Cheif justice of India and plays an important part in appointment of other judges and the Oath and Affirmations related to them. He also has the power to Remove any member of Judiciary on certain grounds and provisions. So President is the head of the Judiciary.

what is article 53

August 8, 2022 at 4:01 pm

It’s simple 1)head of legislature So what is the work of Indian legislature? – to make provision a in reference to public interest – so when a bill become a act – only on approval of president so that’s why.. 2)head of judiciary He appoints the CJI , judge of SC , CJ of HC ,and other judges so

what is article 53

July 20, 2017 at 11:55 am

Thank you lot

what is article 53

September 15, 2017 at 10:39 pm

All clear informations tnxs

what is article 53

December 12, 2017 at 9:31 am

what is article 53

February 10, 2018 at 10:38 pm

Thanks for give me a lot of informations about president and art.52-62.

what is article 53

March 12, 2018 at 4:05 pm

What does this means that Pres. Should be qualified as LS and VP should be qualified as mmbr of RS . WHAT is the difference between qualification

April 28, 2018 at 5:23 pm

Age for qualification of LS is 25yrs and RS is 30 yrs of age

what is article 53

March 19, 2018 at 11:42 am

Please update salary of the president from 1.5L to 5L.

what is article 53

April 17, 2018 at 12:39 am

Thank u so much for making me understand all about president n found ma self free from confusion

what is article 53

April 30, 2018 at 9:26 pm

Thanks clear ias for this information.This help me to understand about part 5 of the Constitution and all about president

what is article 53

May 28, 2018 at 10:10 am

what is article 53

June 15, 2018 at 10:57 am

what is article 53

December 12, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Nice article

what is article 53

January 20, 2019 at 11:27 pm

Thanks for providing each knowledge of polity

what is article 53

April 15, 2019 at 7:14 am

Tnx a lot for this great information

what is article 53

May 16, 2019 at 7:18 am

Very useful thanks

what is article 53

May 22, 2019 at 3:34 pm

I AM GOING TO PASS FOR SURE

July 19, 2019 at 9:11 am

Really good knowledge in this web

what is article 53

August 26, 2019 at 2:01 am

“Nominated members also participate in election of vice president ” In which article it is mentioned? Or we have to take the whole parliment including nominated members as Art 53 , clearly mentions “elected members”, but in case of vice presided it just says “members of Parliament”.

what is article 53

December 10, 2022 at 6:11 pm

According to the Article 66(1)for the election of vice president . All the members of parliament (Nominated and Elected) Takes part in election for vice president .. In the original Constitution the election of vice President was done in the joint sitting of both houses but acording to the amendment 11 of 1961 the process for the election of vice president changed …

what is article 53

November 11, 2019 at 4:20 pm

good knowledge for me

what is article 53

November 25, 2019 at 1:31 pm

Can a handicapped person become The President of India

what is article 53

January 14, 2020 at 10:20 pm

In this there is a error,2000 have been published, not 2000 it’s 2026

what is article 53

March 8, 2020 at 6:45 pm

what is article 53

March 17, 2020 at 7:50 am

Is elected members of J&K legislative assembly automatically included in the electoral college for election of the President or does it need another amendment?

what is article 53

September 8, 2020 at 7:15 pm

what is article 53

April 27, 2021 at 10:57 pm

Thank you very much sir 🙏

what is article 53

July 28, 2022 at 1:12 am

First of all thank you for the valuable information I want to ask that who can take oath under schedules 3 other than chief justice of India

what is article 53

May 12, 2021 at 11:06 am

Explained very nice way & beautiful manner.

what is article 53

June 12, 2021 at 11:10 am

nice information ever . hindi detail about president of india mishras lover dot com

what is article 53

April 24, 2022 at 8:23 pm

what is article 53

July 26, 2023 at 10:02 pm

If president’s election is held and a state is under president’s rule then how it will participate in the election??

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

  • Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
  • Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
  • Indian Police Service (IPS)
  • IAS Exam Eligibility
  • UPSC Free Study Materials
  • UPSC Exam Guidance
  • UPSC Syllabus
  • UPSC Online
  • UPSC Prelims
  • UPSC Interview
  • UPSC Toppers
  • UPSC Previous Year Qns
  • UPSC Age Calculator
  • UPSC Calendar 2024
  • About ClearIAS
  • ClearIAS Programs
  • ClearIAS Fee Structure
  • IAS Coaching
  • UPSC Coaching
  • UPSC Online Coaching
  • ClearIAS Blog
  • Important Updates
  • Announcements
  • Book Review
  • ClearIAS App
  • Work with us
  • Advertise with us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

ClearIAS Featured in The Hindu

and many more...

Admissions Open: UPSC PCM 2025

Thank You 🙌

what is article 53

Papua New Guinea leader vows tough response after fighting kills dozens

Reporting by Kirsty Needham, Alasdair Pal and Renju Jose in Sydney; Editing By Praveen Menon, Michael Perry, William Maclean

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Illustration picture of semiconductor chips

US charges Japanese crime leader with trafficking nuclear materials from Myanmar

U.S. authorities on Wednesday charged the leader of a Japanese crime syndicate with conspiring to traffic nuclear materials from Myanmar for expected use by Iran in nuclear weapons, the Justice Department said.

Chinese Navy ship docks in Manila for four-day goodwill visit

My boyfriend and I spent $40,000 to take our dog to Japan on vacation. It was worth every penny.

  • Tiffany Chan and her partner Anders brought home Siu Tam, a golden retriever, in November 2019.
  • Three years later, the couple paid $40,000 to take their pet on a 53-day vacation in Japan.
  • Chan says it was worth every penny — and they've already returned for a second trip.

Insider Today

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Tiffany Chan, a 32-year-old dog owner based in Hong Kong. This essay has been edited for length and clarity. Business Insider verified Chan's receipts.

My boyfriend Anders and I are based in Hong Kong, and last year we spent around $40,000 to take our dog on vacation in Japan. It was magical to watch Siu Tim experience his first snowfall and frolic through Japan's breathtaking landscapes.

Anders and I are both 32. He works in the IT industry, and I run a pet bakery. We brought Siu Tim home when he was three months old.

While we initially planned for a smaller breed, like a pug or a French Bulldog, the moment we laid eyes on Siu Tim at a pet shop in Mong Kok, we knew he was meant for us.

At around four or five months old, we felt the urge to travel with Siu Tim, but COVID-19 paused our plans for three years. When he turned three and restrictions eased, we embarked on our first trip together, deciding to seize the opportunity while he was still full of energy and playfulness.

Extra paperwork, planning time, and fees were required

In August 2022, we set our sights on Japan for our first international adventure. Known for its pet-friendly atmosphere and diverse seasons, it was the perfect fit for Siu Tim. With a flight just over four hours, Japan seemed a more manageable choice compared to Europe's lengthy journey from Hong Kong.

In early September, we enlisted the help of a pet relocation agency to assist us with the travel requirements for Japan. Given the necessary 180-day lead time for documentation, we kicked off the process promptly. By mid-March 2023, we were ready to embark on our adventure.

A $1,720 fee from the relocation agency included the shipping crate, an import permit, a rabies vaccination, blood tests, and various handling fees. The airline charged an additional overseas courier service fee of $1,615.

On the day of our flight, we arrived at the airport 2.5 hours ahead to ensure a smooth boarding process for Siu Tim. After sorting out the paperwork, we gave him one last bathroom break before settling him into his crate at the designated drop-off. Though he entered without resistance, his cries hinted at his awareness of our impending departure. Witnessing his distress, even briefly, brought tears to my eyes.

But this sadness wore off quickly, as his excitement was palpable when we fetched him from the animal holding area at Narita Airport . Our first task was whisking him off to the quarantine facility for chip verification and completing the essential paperwork for entry into the country.

We visited 26 prefectures in Japan over the course of 53 days.

Our itinerary spanned iconic tourist attractions like Asakusa Temple in Tokyo and Kyoto for a kimono photo shoot. We ventured into rural areas like Mount Nasu and marveled at top waterfalls.

To make traveling around with Siu Tim easier, we spent $1,160 to rent a car. Siu Tim's first encounter with snow-topped mountains was my most memorable part of the trip. I can vividly recall his delight as he played in the snow — leaping, twirling, and barking with excitement. For Anders, the highlight was taking Siu Tim to the zoo to watch the dolphin show.

In Japan, Siu Tim stood out and quickly became a local favorite, perhaps due to the nation's affinity for small dogs. Anders even learned to say Siu Tim's age in Japanese, adding to his charm as a conversation starter.

The trip was expensive but we've already gone on our second vacation together

Despite the steep cost — the total with flights, hotels, entertainment, and dining added up to around $40,000 — embarking on this journey was absolutely worth it. Giving our pet an unforgettable experience is invaluable to us, making the sacrifice entirely worthwhile.

Last month, we revisited Japan with Siu Tim. We thought Japan again would make the most sense for its smooth process, having already completed all necessary paperwork and tests.

On the second trip, we planned a less packed itinerary to avoid travel fatigue. We opted for longer stays at each location, minimizing hotel changes.

For our next vacation, we've decided to start saving up to take Siu Tim on a European trip.

what is article 53

Watch: This is the world's most luxurious dog hotel

what is article 53

  • Main content

logo

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query ( Query Alert Service ). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month .

Constitution Article

Article 53 in constitution of india, 53. executive power of the union.

WISN 12 News and Weather

  •   Weather

Search location by ZIP code

Milwaukee police searching for critically missing 53-year-old man.

Jimmy Lindsay last seen about 11 a.m. Wednesday near 6th and Washington streets

  • Copy Link Copy {copyShortcut} to copy Link copied!

what is article 53

GET LOCAL BREAKING NEWS ALERTS

The latest breaking updates, delivered straight to your email inbox.

The Milwaukee Police Department is looking for a critically missing 53-year-old man.

Jimmy Lindsay was last seen near 6th and Washington streets at about 11 a.m. Wednesday.

Lindsay is 6 feet tall, weighs 160 pounds and has black hair and brown eyes.

He was last seen wearing a red short-sleeve T-shirt, black sweatpants and a red and black baseball cap.

Anyone with any information is asked to contact the Milwaukee Police Department District Two at 414-935-7222, or the Criminal Investigations Bureau at 414-935-7360 between the hours of 12 to 8 a.m.

Skip to Content

Nobel Prize winner Andrea Ghez to give 53rd Gamow lecture

  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via E-mail

Astrophysicist who confirmed black hole at galaxy’s center to speak March 5 at CU Boulder

Andrea Ghez, recipient of the 2020 Nobel Prize in physics, will give the 53rd George Gamow Memorial Lecture March 5 at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Ghez, Lauren B. Leichtman and Arthur E. Levine Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA, shared half of the prize with Reinhard Genzel of the University of California, Berkeley.

Andrea Ghez

Andrea Ghez, 2020 Nobel Prize winner in physics, will give the 53rd George Gamow Memorial Lecture March 5 at the University of Colorado Boulder. (Photo: The Nobel Foundation)

The pair were recognized by the Nobel committee for their discovery of a “supermassive” black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Ghez, head of UCLA’s Galactic Center Group, solved the question, what exactly is “Sagittarius A*,” which was first detected as a mysterious radio signal in 1933. 

“I see being a scientist as really fundamentally being a puzzle-solver,” Ghez said in 2021. “Putting together the pieces, trying to find the evidence, trying to see the bigger picture.”

Who:  Andrea Ghez, recipient of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics

When: 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 5

Where:  Macky Auditorium, University of Colorado Boulder campus

Tickets: Free and open to the public

She helped develop a new technology to correct the distorting effects of Earth’s atmosphere. Gathering data from the world’s largest telescope system, the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, she and her team continue to plumb the depths of the galactic center 26,000 light years distant.

While Albert Einstein’s epochal work on relativity remains the best description of how gravity works, Ghez says it can’t account for gravity inside a black hole. Through what she calls “extreme astrophysics,” she seeks to go where the pioneering astrophysicist could not.

“Einstein’s right for now,” she said. “However, his theory is showing vulnerability. … At some point we will need to move … to a more comprehensive theory of gravity.”

A member of the National Academy of Sciences and author of a 2006 children’s book, “You Can Be a Woman Astronomer,” Ghez is widely recognized as a role model for young women.

“Seeing people who look like you, or are different from you, succeeding shows you that there’s an opportunity,” she said.

Top image: An artist's concept illustrating a supermassive black hole with millions to billions times the mass of fthe Sun. ( Illustration: NASA/JPL-Caltech )

Did you enjoy this article?  Subcribe to our newsletter.  Passionate about astrophysical and planetary sciences?  Show your support.

Related Articles

Frank Oppenheimer doing experiments in physics

Frank Oppenheimer, Robert’s brother, honed physics teaching at CU Boulder

Colorful illustration of Milky Way

Dragons, the universe and everything: finding self through science and fantasy

Los Alamos Medal

Pursuing purpose through physics

  • Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences
  • Division of Natural Sciences

Opinion The Evil Empire collapsed. Putin’s regime will, too.

Natan Sharansky, a Soviet dissident and refusenik, and Carl Gershman, the founding president (now retired) of the National Endowment for Democracy, are both members of the board of the 30 October Foundation.

what is article 53

In the long line of people who have been victims of Soviet and Russian dictators, Alexei Navalny was extraordinary . He dedicated himself to unmasking the cynical, corrupt nature of Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship. And he succeeded, revealing the truth to the world.

He was so dedicated to exposing the nature of Putin’s regime that he chose to return to Russia to force his would-be murderers to make their villainy public. In going back, he showed the people of Russia and the world that he was not afraid — and that neither should they be afraid to act.

In a letter he wrote to one of us from prison, Navalny stated that the “virus” of freedom will never be killed and that hundreds of thousands of people will continue to fight for freedom and against the war in Ukraine.

This was also the message that Vladimir Kara-Murza sent earlier this week from his solitary cell in a “special regime” prison colony in Omsk, Russia. Kara-Murza, a Post contributing columnist , suffers from polyneuropathy, a disease affecting peripheral nerves that has resulted from two near-fatal attempts by the Russian regime to poison him, in 2015 and again in 2017. He, too, is fighting on with astonishing courage.

In so doing, Navalny and Kara-Murza, as well as hundreds of other dissenters, activists and protesters, have followed in the footsteps of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents who showed that, with courage and moral clarity, it is possible to change the world.

Kara-Murza said after his sentencing that although he had initially expected that his imprisonment and trial would resemble what the Soviet dissidents experienced in the 1960s and ’70s, he now saw parallels with the Stalin period. There is no question that the Kremlin’s campaign of political repression is intensifying. According to Memorial , a human rights organization that continues to monitor the arrests of dissidents despite its being muzzled by courts , Russia now holds 676 political prisoners, nearly four times the number in 2018 and more than in the waning years of the Soviet Union. Nearly all independent political figures from the Russian opposition who have not fled the country are behind bars or under house arrest, including Kara-Murza’s friend and political ally Ilya Yashin, who is serving an 8½-year prison sentence for “spreading false information” about Russian massacres of civilians in the city of Bucha, near Kyiv.

The scope of political repression extends far beyond the vocal democratic opposition. According to OVD-Info , a Russian nongovernmental organization that tracks detentions, more than 8,500 administrative cases have been initiated under Article 20.3.3 on “discrediting the armed forces.” This includes Alexei Moskalyov, a single father who was sentenced to two years in jail for discrediting the Russian army after his then-13-year-old daughter drew an antiwar picture in school .

They are not the only victims. Their families, many with young children, have been left to survive on their own, often with no source of income or other support. To help them, Kara-Murza announced from prison, before he was sent to Omsk, that he will donate the funds he received from three human rights prizes — some 110,000 euros — to provide direct financial support to the families of Russian political prisoners. To do this, he and his wife, Evgenia, have founded the 30 October Foundation , named after the Day of Political Prisoners that was established by Soviet dissidents in 1974. The foundation continues in the tradition of Yelena Bonner’s fund to help children of political prisoners and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Russian Social Fund to aid political prisoners and their families, both established in the 1970s.

The political prisoners in Russia, along with thousands of antiwar protesters across the country who have risked arrest, are the cutting edge of a larger movement of political opposition. People are mounting a collective response to the growing number of political prisoners. Networks inside and outside Russia continue to organize letter-writing campaigns to these captives, providing them with independent news and information to counteract the propaganda that is prevalent in Russian jails. In addition, crowdfunding campaigns have collected significant donations. A telethon organized by several independent media outlets last June raised 34.5 million rubles ($415,000) to defend people facing criminal prosecution for demonstrating against the war.

It would be profoundly wrong to assume that there is no possibility for a democratic opening in Russia, especially considering the devastating consequences of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Navalny and Kara-Murza have said repeatedly that a reckoning will come — that there will be another window of opportunity, not unlike the 1990s following the collapse of Communist rule. But this time, Russians must not repeat the terrible mistake of failing to break with the evils of the past — the brutal dictatorship and repression, the foreign aggressions, the Orwellian system of lies subverting not just the truth but also normal human values.

If these evils are to be vanquished, they must be fully understood — and condemned. There must be a moral awakening. That can’t happen without the leadership of the prisoners of conscience, who — like Navalny and Kara-Murza and the countless others imprisoned alongside them — have the moral courage, democratic vision and political fearlessness to chart a new path for Russia. They deserve our full solidarity, as the fate of freedom far beyond the borders of Russia rests heavily on the success of their struggle.

  • Opinion | Does it matter which party nominated a judge? Here’s why it does. February 20, 2024 Opinion | Does it matter which party nominated a judge? Here’s why it does. February 20, 2024
  • Opinion | Fani Willis turns the tables on her attackers February 20, 2024 Opinion | Fani Willis turns the tables on her attackers February 20, 2024
  • Opinion | Manhattan district attorney gets Bragg-ing rights February 18, 2024 Opinion | Manhattan district attorney gets Bragg-ing rights February 18, 2024

what is article 53

Indian Constitution, IPC Section, Articles

Constitution Of India, Indian Penal Code - IPC

Article 53 of Indian Constitution

Article 53 of Indian Constitution: Executive power of the Union

Article 53 Executive power of the Union – Constitution Of India

(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.

(3) Nothing in this article shall—

(3a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority; or

(3b) prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the President.

PDF Download Article 53 of Indian Constitution, Constitution of India Article 53

"</p

What is Article 53 of Indian Constitution

In simpler terms, Article 53 can be summarized as follows:

  • Executive Power of the Union : The executive power of the Union (the central government) is vested in the President of India.
  • Exercise of Executive Power : The President can exercise this executive power either directly or through officers who are subordinate to the President, as per the provisions of the Constitution.
  • Supreme Command of Defence Forces : The President holds the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union (the armed forces), and the use of this power is regulated by law.

Article 53 is a fundamental provision that establishes the President as the head of the executive branch of the Indian government and outlines the President’s authority and responsibilities, including the control of the armed forces.

Constitution Of India Part 5 The Union – Articles 52 to 151

Article 52 of indian constitution, article 54 of indian constitution – election of president, article 55 of indian constitution – manner of election of president, article 56 of indian constitution – term of office of president, article 57 of indian constitution – eligibility for re-election, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Examarly

Article 53 Of The Indian Constitution

article 53 of indian constitution

As per the provisions of Article 53 of the Indian Constitution, the President is granted executive authority over the Union, which he may use directly or through officers who report to him in conformity with the Constitution.

The President will defend the highest command of the Union’s defense forces, subject to the generality of the aforementioned article, and its exercise will be governed by legislation.

What Is Article 53 Of The Indian Constitution?

Executive power of the union, more powers of the president of india, legislative powers, financial powers, judicial powers, diplomatic powers, military powers, what is meant by the executive power of the union, what is the minimum age to become a president, what are the pardoning powers of the president, who elects the president of india.

The President’s executive power is granted to him by Article 53 of the Constitution. He may exercise this power directly or through representatives.

The president can exercise his executive powers through officers subordinate to him. These powers have been mentioned below: 

  • The President is given the authority to act on behalf of the Union and may do so directly or through agents who report to him in accordance with this Constitution.
  • The President will hold the supreme command of the Union’s defence forces, subject to the generality of the aforementioned provision, and its exercise will be governed by legislation.
  • (a) transferring to the President any powers provided by any existing law to the Government of any State or other entity; or
  • (b) preventing the Parliament from legally transferring law functions on authorities to any entities other than the President through legislation.
  • The executive power of each Union is vested in India’s President. Therefore, the President may execute the constitutional powers granted to him by the Indian Constitution either directly or indirectly.
  • Senior government officials like the Prime Minister and Council Ministers may be appointed by the President.
  • The President also has the right to inform everyone about every national issue and is in charge of the constitutional courts’ judges.
  • The President will next appoint the Chief Commissioners and Lieutenant Governors of the various state areas, as well as the districts that are governed centrally.
  • Next, the president is in charge of selecting the judges for the High and Supreme Courts.
  • Along with this, the president is also tasked with the removal of the State Governor, the Minister’s Council, and the Attorney General when needed.
  • The President is the first person to brief the parliament during the plenary.
  • The President is also given the authority to call a joint session to end a legislative impasse between the two houses of Parliament.
  • The President’s sanction is required for provisions, according to the President’s Legislative Powers. These clauses deal with altering the borders of the current states, adding new states, and changing the name of the states.
  • Next, all legal rights pertaining to a civilian’s fundamental freedoms require the President’s approval. Additionally, all bills that have originated in the Lok Sabha must obtain the President’s approval.
  • The President has the legal right to suggest candidates both for the Legislative Assembly and the State Legislatures.
  • Additionally, while the parliament is not in session, the president is given the power to promulgate the decree.
  • Moreover, the president has the authority to issue a decree when the parliament is not in session. Hence, the bill cannot become law.
  • He must have approved the money bill before it can be introduced.
  • He orders the presentation of the Union Budget to the Parliament.
  • His recommendation is a requirement to file a funding request.
  • He is in charge of India’s contingency fund.
  • Every five years, he appoints the Finance Commission.

As part of his judicial authority, the President has the following privileges:

  • Preserving, defending, and upholding the law and the Indian Constitution are the president’s main duties.
  • Exercising the power to grant pardons and reprieves of punishments.
  • Legal matters,
  • Constitutional matter,
  • Matters of national importance.
  • The diplomatic powers of the President are that he represents the Indian government in International affairs and Forums.
  • Moreover, international agreements and treaties whose approval comes from the house of parliament, are concluded and negotiated in the name of the president.
  • The President is required to be the supreme leader of all military forces under the control of the Indian Union, as stated in Article 53.
  • He has the authority to appoint the chiefs of the army’s three wings.

For Further Radings:

The entire piece was prepared with the intention of shedding light on every facet of Article 53 of the Indian Constitution. The Government’s executive authority is particularly addressed in Article 53. The executive power of the Union and its connected components have been extensively explored throughout the topic, which has served as the focus of the discussion.

The President of India is vested with several powers. These powers are referred to as the Executive power of the Union.

The person must have completed thirty-five years of age to be eligible to become a president.

The matters pertaining to the pardoning powers of the President are set forth in Article 72. The President has the authority to reconcile, remit, respite, and remit sanctions as well as remit, suspend, or commute the sentence given to a person by the court.

The President is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of the elected members of both the Houses of Parliament – Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of States and the Union Territories of Delhi and Pondicherry.

Related Posts

ghiyath ud din tughluq shah ii

Ghiyath Ud Din Tughluq Shah II

article 244 of indian constitution

Article 244 Of The Indian Constitution

Article 388 Of The Indian Constitution

Article 388 Of The Indian Constitution

All About UPSC Exam

All About UPSC Exam: A Comprehensive Guide

IMAGES

  1. what is article 53

    what is article 53

  2. (PDF) El artículo 53 de la Constitución Española de 1978: esquema de la

    what is article 53

  3. Article 53 of the Indian Constitution|अनुच्छेद 53|भाग -5|भारतीय सविंधान

    what is article 53

  4. What is Article 53 of the Indian Constitution?

    what is article 53

  5. (PDF) Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

    what is article 53

  6. What is Article 53 of the Indian Constitution?

    what is article 53

VIDEO

  1. Trailer Review: Article 370 : Yami Gautam-starrer film is all about Kashmir & #article370 #trailer

  2. The Wall Street Journal published an article on managed accounts and the challenges posed

  3. Ex-Killeen Housing Authority Director accused of embezzling thousands for personal expenses

  4. حماس نے آل باریج علاقے میں دشمن کو بھون ڈالا

  5. Unlocking the Power of Clarity : The Key to Business Success

COMMENTS

  1. The Meaning of "the Interests of Justice" in Article 53 of the Rome

    As set forth above, Article 53 (2) (c) states: "A prosecution is not in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of ...

  2. Statute of the Court Of Justice

    Article 53. 1. Whenever one of the parties does not appear before the Court, or fails to defend its case, the other party may call upon the Court to decide in favour of its claim. 2. The Court must, before doing so, satisfy itself, not only that it has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 36 and 37, but also that the claim is well founded ...

  3. Chapter VIII: Article 53

    Article 53 " 1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. ... The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of the Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter. ...

  4. PDF Rome Statute International Criminal

    Article 53 Initiation of an investigation 24 Article 54 Duties and powers of the Prosecutor with respect to investigations 24 Article 55 Rights of persons during an investigation 25 Article 56 Role of the Pre-Trial Chamber in relation to a unique investigative opportunity 25 Article 57 Functions and powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber 26

  5. PDF Article 53

    A. Sources of Article 53 Article 53 is clearly inspired by similar (o r apparently similar) provisions in international human rights treaties, such as for example in Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that: Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the

  6. United Nations Charter (full text)

    This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35. Article 53. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement ...

  7. Article 53

    ARTICLE 53 - (1) The exercise of certain rights or freedoms may only be restricted by law, and only if necessary, as the case may be, for: the defence of national security, of public order, health, or morals, of the citizens' rights and freedoms; conducting a criminal investigation; preventing the consequences of a natural calamity, disaster ...

  8. Article 53

    Article 53. , Exceptions to patentability. (a) inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to "ordre public" or morality; such exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the Contracting States; (b) plant or animal varieties or essentially ...

  9. 'Uniform' Amendments to CPLR Article 53? Not So Fast

    The revised CPLR Article 53 overrules a long line of cases culminating in Akhmedova and creates two new discretionary grounds for refusal to recognize a foreign judgment based on the circumstances ...

  10. Article 53 echr and Minimum Protection by the European Court of ...

    Abstract It is often emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights (echr or Convention) offers only minimum protection and states are allowed to offer additional guarantees. Indeed, Article 53 echr obliges the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to respect such national guarantees if they go beyond the Convention. Similar provisions are usually included in human rights treaties as ...

  11. UN Enemy State Clause

    Enemy State clauses is a term used to refer to article 107 and parts of article 53 of the United Nations Charter. They are both exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force in relation to countries that were part of the Axis . Under article 107 States are allowed to take enforcement action "as a result of" World War II against "any ...

  12. Is Article 53(a) EPC still of narrow interpretation?

    In spite of this, exceptions to patentability in the European Patent Convention, including Article 53(a) EPC, have conventionally been of narrow interpretation. But the ubiquity of this approach has been rejected by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in relation to the exclusion of diagnostic and therapeutic methods under Article 53(c) EPC.

  13. A Brief Understanding of Article 53

    The total article has been written on the core topic of Article 53. This article holds an important position in the list of articles concerning the President of India. This topic should be ignored at any cost as many come from this topic in the UPSC exam. The topic will be discussed in detail through discussion of executive power of the Union, accordance with the constitution, and transfer to ...

  14. What is the Article 53? [Get the Answers at BYJU'S]

    Article 53 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Executive power of the Union. The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme ...

  15. Article 53: Executive Power of the Union

    Article 53, Constitution of India 1950. (1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command or the Defence Forces of ...

  16. Navy women's basketball upsets Loyola Maryland, 53-51, as Kate Samson

    Sophomore center Kate Samson scored the go-ahead basket with 2.6 seconds remaining as Navy upset Loyola, 53-51, at Alumni Hall.

  17. Pablo Neruda: Poet's death should be reinvestigated, court rules

    Updated 10:47 PM PST, February 20, 2024. SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — The death of Nobel laureate Pablo Neruda days after Chile's 1973 military coup should be reinvestigated, an appeals court ruled Tuesday, saying new steps could help clarify what killed the poet. Last December, a judge rejected a request by Neruda's nephew to reopen the case ...

  18. Article 53

    Article 53 - Non-recoverable Input Tax. Non-recoverable Input Tax. 1. Input Tax shall be non-recoverable if it is incurred by a Person in respect of the following Taxable Supplies: a. Where the Person is not a Government Entity as specified in a Cabinet Decision in accordance with Article (10) and (57) of the Decree-Law, and there is provision ...

  19. The President of India (Articles 52-62)

    Although Article 53 of the Constitution of India states that the President can exercise his or her powers directly or by subordinate authority, with few exceptions, all of the executive authority vested in the President are, in practice, exercised by the Council of Ministers (CoM). ... Article 72: Power of President to grant pardons, etc., and ...

  20. At least 53 killed in tribal fighting in Papua New Guinea, ABC reports

    Papua New Guinea will give arrest powers to its military amid an eruption of tribal violence in remote highlands that saw at least 26 men killed in an ambush, Prime Minister James Marape said late ...

  21. I Spent $40,000 to Take My Dog on a 53-Day Vacation in Japan

    A magnifying glass. It indicates, "Click to perform a search". An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders. It often indicates a user profile. Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. It ...

  22. Article 53 in Constitution of India

    Article 53 in Constitution of India. 53. Executive power of the Union. (1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme ...

  23. Milwaukee police searching for critically missing 53-year-old man

    The Milwaukee Police Department is looking for a critically missing 53-year-old man. Jimmy Lindsay was last seen near 6th and Washington streets at about 11 a.m. Wednesday. Lindsay is 6 feet tall ...

  24. Nobel Prize winner Andrea Ghez to give 53rd Gamow lecture

    Related Articles. Frank Oppenheimer, Robert's brother, honed physics teaching at CU Boulder. In a little known chapter of university history, the Manhattan Project scientist taught for several years in the Department of Physics, and his legacy appears in the fabric of the department.

  25. Opinion

    Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Kara-Murza are two of the most prominent victims of Putin's repression. Their heroism is a sign that a different Russia is possible.

  26. Article 53 of Indian Constitution

    Article 53 is a fundamental provision that establishes the President as the head of the executive branch of the Indian government and outlines the President's authority and responsibilities, including the control of the armed forces.

  27. Article 53| Executive power of the Union

    What does Article 53 mean What does Article 53 implies Executive power of U... Executive power of the UnionIn this video we will talk about What is Article 53 ? Civil Services Exam

  28. Article 53 Of The Indian Constitution // Examarly

    March 3, 2023. As per the provisions of Article 53 of the Indian Constitution, the President is granted executive authority over the Union, which he may use directly or through officers who report to him in conformity with the Constitution. The President will defend the highest command of the Union's defense forces, subject to the generality ...