Public Morality as a Legitimate Aim to Limit Rights and Freedoms in the National and International Legal Order

• Authors: Anna Młynarska-Sobaczewska , Katarzyna Kubuj , Aleksandra Mężykowska

Abstracts

EN

Domestic legislation and international instruments designed for the protection of human rights provide for general clauses allowing limitations of rights and freedoms, e.g. public morals. A preliminary analysis of the case-law leads to the observation that both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, when dealing with cases concerning sensitive moral issues, introduce varied argumentation methods allowing them to avoid making direct moral judgments and relying on the legitimate aim of protecting morality. In the article the Authors analyse selected judicial rulings in which moral issues may have played an important role. The scrutiny is done in order to identify and briefly discuss some examples of ways of argumentation used in the area under discussion by domestic and international courts. The identification of the courts’ methods of reasoning enables us in turn to make a preliminary assessment of the real role that the morality plays in the interpretation of human rights standards. It also constitutes a starting point for further consideration of the impact of ideological and cultural connotations on moral judgments, and on the establishment of a common moral standard to be applied in cases in which restriction on human rights and freedoms are considered.

Keywords

EN

public morality; morals; legitimate aim; constitutional courts; European Court of Human Rights; methods of argumentation

• Publisher: Polska Akademia Nauk
• Journal: Contemporary Central and East European Law
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 1 (133)
• Pages: 10-20

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Anna Młynarska-Sobaczewska

• Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences

• https://orcid.org/0000000330292836

author

Katarzyna Kubuj

• Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences

• https://orcid.org/0000000336894520

author

Aleksandra Mężykowska

• Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences

• https://orcid.org/0000000192832952

References

• Appl. 39793/17 Charles Gard and Others v United Kingdom [2017] <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-175359%22]> accessed 30 Dec 2019.
• Appl. 46043/14 Lambert and Others v France [2015] <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-155264%22]> accessed 30 Dec 2019.
• Appl. 55185/08 Ada Rossi and Others v Italy [2008] <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-2597660-2816175%22]> accessed 30 Dec 2019.
• Belfanti L, ‘Qu’est-ce que «la bonne moralité» du magistrat? Le clair-obscur de la notion de «bonne moralité» comme condition d’accès aux fonctions de magistrat’ (2013) Les Cahiers de la Justice 2.
• Bellamy R, ‘Public Law as Democracy’ in C Mac Armlaigh, C Michelon, N Walker (eds), After Public Law (OUP 2013).
• Bjorge E, ‘National Supreme Courts and the Development of the ECHR Rights’ (2011) ICON 1.
• Buge É, ‘Pénalisation des clients de la prostitution: le Conseil constitutionnel face aux choix de société’ (2019) AJDA 17.
• Case 27417/95 Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [2000] ECtHR 2000-VII.
• Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocols No.11 and No.14 (opened for signature 4 Nov 1950, entered into force 3 Sept 1953) CETS No. 005.
• Cosentino Ch, ‘Safe and Legal Abortion: An Emerging Human Right? The Long-Lasting Dispute with State Sovereignty in ECHR Jurisprudence’ (2015) HR L Rev 15.
• Decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 10 December 2014, K 52/13 (2014) ZU OTK-A 11, item 118.
• Dijkstra S, ‘The Freedom of the Judges to Express His Personal Opinions and Convictions under the ECHR’ (2017) Utrecht Law Review 13 (1).
• Eder M, ‘Parillo v. Italy: ECHR Allows States to Interfere with Individuals’ Admittedly Private Lives’ (2016) Tul J Int’l & Comp L 24.
• Garlicki L, ‘Komentarz do art. 30’ [Commentary to Art. 30] in L Garlicki (ed) Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, vol. 3 [The Constitution of the Republic of Poland, Vol. 3] (Wydawnictwo Sejmowe 2003).
• Jackson VC, Tushnet M (eds), Paradigms of Proportionality (CUP 2017).
• Kapelańska-Pręgowska J, ‘European Court of Human Rights (GC), Case of Lambert and Others v. France, judgment of 5 June 2015, application no. 46043/14’ (2016) Comp L Rev (Nicolaus Copernicus Univ) 21.
• Loughlin M, The Idea of Public Law (Oxford University Press 2003).
• Lyons D, Etyka i rządy prawa [Ethics and the Rule of Law] (Dom Wydawniczy ABC 2000).
• Nowlin Ch, ‘The Protection of Morals under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (2002) HRQ 24.
• Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 21 maja 2003 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o ochronie zwierząt [Act on protection of animals of August 21st 1997] [2003] JoL 106, 1002 [Announcement of the Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of May 21, 2003 on the announcement of the uniform text of the Act on protection of animals].
• Perju V, ‘Proportionality and Freedom: An Essay on Method in Constitutional Law’ (2012) GlobCon 1–2, 334–367, <http://www.doi.org/10.1017/S2045381712000044>.
• Perrone R, ‘Public Morals and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2014) Israel L Rev 47(3).
• Planchet V, ‘Les garanties morales requises des candidats à la fonction publique’ (2005) AJDA 1.
• Plouffe-Malette K, Moralité publique des droits de la personne au droit de l’OMC (Bruylant Larcier 2019).
• Richaud C, ‘Pénalisation des clients de personnes se livrant à la prostitution: la schizophrénie juridique’ (2019) La Gazette du Palais 10.
• Wojtyczek K, ‘Granice ingerencji ustawodawczej w sferę praw człowieka w Konstytucji RP’ [The Boundaries of Legislative Interference in the Field of Human Rights in the Constitution] (Zakamycze 1999).

Identifiers

DOI

10.37232/cceel.2019.01

Biblioteka Nauki

2172238