Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Regno Unito. Abbandonare la European convention on human rights.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.



È buona norma del comportamento politico non parlare mai direttamente dei problemi reali in pubblico. Quasi invariabilmente la gente non li capirebbe né ne comprenderebbe la reale portata.

Mrs May ha fatto in questo una notevole eccezione, proponendo il problema della European convention on human rights (Echr), e facendolo proprio a ridosso della tornata elettorale politica.


Official text of the European Convention on Human Rights. [Council of Europe]

Protocols to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [Council of Europe]

Database of European Human Rights Court (Strasbourg) judgments


«The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgements, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained. ….

The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the U.S. Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.» [Fonte]


«The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) is a supra-national or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals or one or more of the other contracting states, and, besides judgments, the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the Convention. The Court is based in Strasbourg, France.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

I principi stabiliti dalla European Convention on Human Rights dovrebbero essere vincolanti per tutti gli stati membri dell’Unione Europea e le sentenze emesse dalla European Court of Human Rights dovrebbero avere valore sovrannazionale.

Se si potesse abbandonare il fraseggio politicamente corretto, i problemi in questa materia sarebbero facilmente esprimibili.

– La Convenzione, ma soprattutto le sentenze rese dalla Corte, hanno definito come “diritti fondamentali” elementi che per loro natura tali non erano, non sono né possono essere, e nel definire tali “diritti” non ha mai definito i relativi “doveri“. Nel contempo, la Corte ha dismesso il “diritto alla vita“, relegandone la validità solo dopo che la vita fosse in essere da un tempo definito in via amministrativa. Queste con incoerenze sottominano severamente la logica dell’apparato giuridico.

– La European Court of Human Rights ha apertamente ammesso come la amministrazione della giustizia “require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations“. Questo criterio operativo ha permesso alla Corte di esprimere sentenze più in via politica che legale, ponendosi di fatto come legislatore autorizzato a variare il contenuti sostanziali della European Convention on Human Rights. Essendo queste sentenze non appellabili, la Corte è diventata il vero organo politico deliberante ed esecutivo dell’Unione Europea, pur non avendo vidimazione alcuna da voto popolare.

– Nel caso specifico del Regno Unito, essendo la sua giurisprudenza basata sul Common Law, le sentenze della European Court of Human Rights esercitano un peso ben diverso da quello che hanno su stati che per recepire le sentenze devono introdurre e/o variare le leggi. Ne risentono direttamente, e questo non è tollerabile per gli inglesi, giustamente, si potrebbe aggiungere.


«The Conservatives have promised not to withdraw from the European convention on human rights during the next parliament but they could begin to try to replace or amend parts of the Human Rights Act after the UK leaves the EU.»


«It is possible May’s plans could involve seeking further derogations from the ECHR. This is the way the government is seeking to prevent human rights claims against soldiers in future military situations»


Questo è il cuore del problema. Il resto è dettaglio operativo.

The Guardian. 2017-06-07. May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation

PM says she is looking at making it easier to deport foreign suspects as she seeks to gain control of security agenda before election.


Theresa May has declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects, as she sought to gain control over the security agenda just 36 hours before the polls open.

The prime minister said she was looking at how to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and how to increase controls on extremists where it is thought they present a threat but there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.

The last-ditch intervention comes after days of pressure on May over the policing cuts and questions over intelligence failures, following terror attacks on London Bridge, Manchester and Westminster.

She said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.

“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.

“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”

The proposed measures appear to be an attempt at strengthening terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) rather than a complete return to Labour’s control orders, which were repeatedly struck down by the courts and then scrapped by May in 2010 when she was home secretary.

They could involve further curfews, restrictions on association with other known extremists, controls on where they can travel and limits on access to communication devices.

She could even increase the period for which terror suspects can be held without trial, currently 14 days – a move that provoked clashes with civil liberties campaigners when Tony Blair attempted it after the 7 July 2005 attacks.

May told the Sun she would consult the intelligence agencies about what they think is needed: “When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days. We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

The Conservatives have promised not to withdraw from the European convention on human rights during the next parliament but they could begin to try to replace or amend parts of the Human Rights Act after the UK leaves the EU.

It is possible May’s plans could involve seeking further derogations from the ECHR. This is the way the government is seeking to prevent human rights claims against soldiers in future military situations.

Earlier in the day, the prime minister tried to return her election campaign to the issues of Brexit and her leadership, as the Tories’ poll lead over Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour remained narrow.

But she continued to face a barrage of questions over the impact of cuts to policing. Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said planned cuts of 10-40% in London over the next four years would make it “harder to foil terrorist attacks on our city”.

May was then repeatedly challenged about how the Home Office, police and intelligence services dealt with the information relating to the attackers, after Boris Johnson, her foreign secretary, said MI5 had questions to answer. One of the attackers, Khuram Butt, 27, had been reported to the anti-terror hotline in 2015 and a third attacker, Youssef Zaghba, 22, had been detained by Italian authorities in 2016.

Zaghba, named by police for the first time yesterday, was put on an international terrorism database for an attempt to travel to Syria in March 2016 which was thwarted after he allegedly told officials at Bologna: “I am going to be a terrorist.” But this does not seem to have been spotted by UK intelligence agencies.

His mother, Valeria Collina, told the Italian news magazine L’Espresso that her son was “friends” with the two other men and monitored by Italian officials after his failed journey to Syria.

May said she “absolutely recognised people’s concerns” and added that she expected the intelligence agencies to launch a review of the London Bridge attack.

“We need to look at how the terror threat is evolving, the way that terrorism is breeding terrorism and the increased tempo of attacks. We have had three horrific attacks and we have foiled five others. The tempo is there in a way we haven’t seen before,” she said.

“We will look at how the processes were followed, what they did. They will want to be looking at that because they will want to learn lessons for the future, if there are those lessons to be learned.”

She added: “The police and security service have done a good job in foiling a number of plots – just five in the last three months, and a significant number in the last few years as well.”

May declined to say whether Zaghba had been monitored or subject to an exclusion order when he returned to the UK after being stopped in Italy, and declined an opportunity to apologise for any failures by the intelligence agencies.

Despite having previously said she believed the police and security services had the resources they needed to deal with terrorism, she went on to announce details of a proposed crackdown on terrorism at a rally of Conservative activists in Slough.

Her remarks suggested that if she is re-elected her government could look to step up the use of orders that restrict the movement of terror suspects.

There are currently only seven terror suspects considered enough of a threat to be given Tpims, while there are about 23,000 people considered to have been subjects of interest by the security services. Tpims, which expire after two years, can include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation and some limitations on use of a mobile phone and the internet.

Elements of the orders could be strengthened but any attempt to return to the 18-hour-a-day curfews imposed by control orders would be likely to end up in the courts.

May’s proposals follow criticism from Labour and other parties about her cuts to policing and approach to tackling terrorism in the Home Office, which she led for six years. Corbyn accused the prime minister on Sunday night of trying to “protect the public on the cheap” by implementing 20,000 police cuts.

The prime minister has also been accused of politicising her response to the London Bridge terror attack when she addressed the nation outside Downing Street on Sunday. She declared “enough is enough” as she announced plans to
introduce new anti-terror laws, without going into details about what
she would do.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “You can’t keep our country safe on the cheap. Theresa May is refusing to put in the resources that are needed. She has slashed funding for the police, our courts system and border force.

“I will do everything necessary and effective to keep our people safe. We will always keep the law under review, but don’t believe would-be terrorists and suicide bombers will be deterred by longer sentences or restricting our rights at home.

“The right response to the recent attacks is to halt the Conservative cuts and invest in our police and security services and protect our democratic values, including the Human Rights Act.

“It is disgraceful that the Conservative government is suppressing its own report into terrorist funding. We will not shy away from the difficult conversations about who funds and supports terrorism.”

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, said May was only “posturing about being tough on terror”. He added: “In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut. We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

The London Bridge attack on Saturday night left seven people dead, and 15 remain in hospital in critical condition. Raids and searches of properties in east London continue, but 12 others arrested as part of inquiries into whether anyone else helped the attackers have been released without charge.


Un pensiero riguardo “Regno Unito. Abbandonare la European convention on human rights.

I commenti sono chiusi.