'The human rights protection system established by the European Convention on Human Rights safeguards the rights and freedoms of individuals against the actions of states. Article 18 of the Convention plays a central role in preventing the misuse of power by states, ensuring that restrictions on rights and freedoms are applied only for purposes authorised by the Convention itself. Although Article 18 has no independent existence and can only be applied in conjunction with another Article of the Convention or its Protocols, the European Court of Human Rights has used Article 18 as a tool for interpretation of the restriction clauses contained in other provisions of the Convention or its Protocols. Article 18 is rarely invoked, and whilst violations under this provision are rare (to date, only 27 cases out of more than 26,000 in which the Court has found a violation of the Convention), the Court exercises increased diligence in examining allegations of improper motives.
In cases where violations of Article 18 are established, the execution process can be particularly complex. This is confirmed by the fact that the Committee of Ministers has only initiated infringement proceedings under Article 46 § 4 of the Convention twice2 in its history, and both instances concerned judgments with violations of Article 18. In accordance with the Committee of Ministers’ usual practice, supported by the Court’s reasoning in its two Article 46 § 4 judgments, the principle of restitutio in integrum requires in such cases that all the negative consequences of the abusive criminal/disciplinary proceedings be erased for the applicant. Other required measures focus on the need to prevent a repetition of the abuse of power, either for the applicant or for others. Where the violation reveals a misuse of the criminal justice system, reforms to reinforce the independence of the judiciary and to shield the judiciary as well as the prosecuting authorities from political influence, in particular from the executive, are necessary.
Even though the majority of Article 18 cases transferred from the Court remain pending full execution before the Committee of Ministers, respondent states have demonstrated their ability to put in place important individual and general measures even in very complex situations. The present factsheet provides examples of measures reported by states in the context of the execution of the European Court's judgments concerning Article 18, where the Committee of Ministers has either considered the measures taken to be sufficient and therefore closed the supervision of the cases or noted positive developments, highlighting the progress made by states in addressing these concerns.'
