summary of horizontal effect of constns.pdf

8/14/2019 Summary of horizontal effect of constns.pdf

1/38

Canad

a

WrittenConstitution1982.Humanrigh

tsaresetoutintheCharte

rofRightsandFreedoms1

982.Dualistsystem.Allpro

vinces

arecommon

lawbasedexceptQuebec(civillawsystem).Atfederallevelt

helawisbasedontheConstitutionandlegislatio

nplus

caselaw.

Privatespher

eeffect?

Thete

xtoftheConstitutionisexplicitthatitisbindingonlyongovernmentandlegislatures.This'go

vern-

menta

laction'doctrineresemblesinsomerespectsthe

US'stateaction'doctrine.Thisdoesnotnormallyinclude

thecou

rts,thoughsomecaselawanddictasuggestthatthefactthatacourtdecidesap

rivateorcriminalmatterin

volves

stateaction.

ThecommonlawshouldbedevelopedinlinewithChartervaluesifitisinconsistentwiththem.Thusthereis

someindirecthorizontaleffectinthecommonlawbutinprincipleprivatesphereprotectionshouldbeleft

tothe

legislaturesandanalternativetort

systemshouldnotbedeveloped.

CountrybyCountryChart


2/38

Country by Country Chart 521

Ifstateresponsibilitieshavebe

endelegatedtoorassum

edbyprivatebodies,or

iftherewasstateinvolve

ment

inpriva

teaction,Charterrightswillapply.

Ifprivatesphereactivityisreg

ulatedbystatute,e.g.wherethecommonlawhasb

eencodified,ortherestatutory

authorityfororapprovalo

finfringements,Charterrights

apply.

InQuebecthecivilcodeissta

tutory,theCharterapplie

s,andsothereisstrongerprivatesphereprotect

ionin

thatprovincethanelsewhere.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Freedomofspeechatradeunionengaginginsecondarypicketingofaprivatecompanythatwasunlawfulatcommon

lawclaimedarighttofreedomof

speechundertheCharter.Heldthattherebeingnogovernmentalactionbased

inthe

commo

nlawthefreespeechguaranteewasnotbreached.An

injunctionagainsttheunio

nwasgranted(DolphinDelivery).

Freedomofspeechcourtbanonbroadcastingoffiction

almaterialthatmightpreju

diceatrialheldnottobe

inline

withtheneedtodevelopthecomm

onlawinlinewiththeChartervalues.Bansonlytobe

madewherenecessarytop

revent

substan

tialr

isktoafairtrial(Dage

naiscase).

Burden

isontheclaimanttoshow

thatthecommonlawissoinconsistentwithaCharterrightthatitcannolongerbe

justified

(Hillv

ChurchofScientology).

Governmentdoesnotincludeuniversities(Guelphcase).Butabody,e.g.aprivatehospital,maybepartofgovernm

entif

itisimplementingaspecificgovern

mentalpolicyorprogramm

e.Repealofprotectivelegis

lationmaybegovernmentaction

andattractgovernmentliability(Dunmorecase).


3/38

522 Human Rights and the Private Sphere

Denma

rk

WrittenConstitution1849,amended1953.HumanrightsincludedintheConstitution.TheECHRwasincorporatedintoD

anish

lawin1991.

AdualistNordiclawsystemamixbetweenacivillawsystem(codesandlegislation)andacommonlaws

ystem

(muchlawtheresultofjudicialpractice/caselaw). P

rivatespher

eeffect?

Despitethefactthatthereishum

anrightsprotectionintheConstitution,thecourts

havenotreliedonthisto

justify

protectionofhumanrightsintheprivatesphere.Traditionally,

theprotectionofconstitutionalrightsisconside

reda

matterforpolitics,andprotectionofinternationalhumanrightshasbeenprimarilyaforeignpolicymatter.

Human

rightsprotectionrestsontheIncorporationAct1991andthedutyofallpublicaut

horitiestointerpretthelaw

com-

patiblywithinternationalobligations.

HumanrightsprotectioninDenmarkislargelydueto

legislationandthedevelopmentofjudicialpractice.

Theprevailingviewisthathumanrightshaveindirectratherthandirecthorizontal

effect.

Theinterpretiveapproachisregardedasmeaningthatintern

ationalhumanrightsha

vedomesticapplicabilit

y.

Humanrightsarewellprotect

edbyordinarylaw,inthepublicandprivatespheres,andhorizontale

ffectofordinary

legislationhasnotbeenconsidered

problematic.

Allcourtshavejurisdictiontodealw

ithhumanrightsissues.Thereisnopubliclawprivatelawdivide.

Inmany

casesitisdifficulttodistinguishhorizontalfromverticaleffect.Themain

featureofahorizontalcaseis

thatAsinterestsorrightsareaffectedbytheimplementationofBshumanrights.

Inbalan

cingconflictingrightsthecourtsareparticularlyconcernedaboutlegalcertainty,i.e.theforeseeabilityoflimitations

ofAsrightsforthesakeofBsrightsandthequestionwhetherthelimitsoneithersrightareprescribedbylaw.

Individu

alr

ightsandinterestsmayalsocoincideorclashwithpublicinterests,thusmakingitdifficulttodistin

guish

horizo

ntalfromverticaleffect

.


4/38


Examplesfrom

caselaw

Theinteractionbetweenjudicialandlegislativeimplement

ationofinternationalhu

manrights:dutiestopr

ovide

information,therighttosilence

Awitn

esssrighttosilenceund

erDanishlegislationtoavoidself-incriminationprevailsoveraclaimbydefendantsin

acriminaltrialtohearthewitn

esssevidence,andthisdo

esnotbreachArticle6ECH

R.Totheextentthatthissituation

involvesbalancingconflictingintere

stsithasahorizontalaspect.

Inbankruptcyproceedingstheboardmembersrights

againstself-incriminationprevailovertheirdu

tyin

Danish

legislationtoprovideinformationtothetrusteetoprotectthepropertyrightsofcreditors.Therig

htto

silence

wasafundamentalrightinDanishlawandtheEC

HRArticle6.

Incom

petitionlawproceeding

saphysicalorlegalpersonsrighttoremainsile

ntwillnotnecessarilyprevail

overEuropeanlawrequirementsthatitprovideinform

ationinordertoprotect

therightsofthecompetitorsand

thepub

licinterest.

ImplementationoftheEUEnforcementDirectiveinDenmark

providesfortherighttosilenceofallegedinfringersof

IPrigh

tstoprevailovertheow

nerspropertyrights.

Childrenmaybecompelledto

giveevidenceagainstth

eirmotherinacriminaltrialinwhichshewaschargedwith

assaultinganotherchild,andthiswasnotregardedasabreach

ofECHRArticle8oroftheConventionontheR

ights

oftheChild.

Childvictimsofcrimemayhavetheirevidencevideotaped,butthedefencelawyerisentitledunderDanishlegislat

ionto

seethe

videoandaskquestionsof

thewitnessthroughtheinterviewer.Iftheserulesare

breachedtheuseofthevideoas

evidenc

ewillberestrictedandaco

nvictionbasedinpartonth

evideomaybequashed.Thefairtrialrightofthed

efen-

dantis

balanced,throughlegis

lation,withthechildvic

timsrights.

Resolu

tionofindirecthorizontaleffectissuesisfact-se

nsitiveineachparticula

rcase.Ineachsuchsituationthe

balance

isachievedpragmatically.


5/38


Englandand

Wales

Nowrittenconstitution.HumanRights

Act1998notentrenched

.Dualistcommonlawsyste

m.

Privatespher

eeffect?

Mosthumanrightsareprotec

tedinordinarylawbya

combinationofstatutesan

dcommonlawandequitydevel-

opments.

Additio

nalprotectionisprovidedundertheHumanRightsAc

t1998whichimposesanin

terpretiveobligationandanobli-

gationtodevelopthecommonlaw

,bothobligationscreatingformsofindirecthorizontaleffectofrightsunde

rthe

ECHR.

Developmentofhorizontale

ffectislargelytheresponsibilityofallcourtsunderthe

HumanRightsAct.Practitioners

rarelyt

akehorizontale

ffectpoints

.

Explicit

referenceismadeinthe(rathersparse)caselawtotheECHRandtovaluesun

derlyinghumanrightssuchas

dignityandautonomy.

Inthea

bsenceofatraditionalpublicprivatedividethecourtshavebeenabletodevelopp

rivatesphereprotectionthrough

develop

mentofthecommonlaw,importingconceptsfrompubliclaw.


6/38


Examplesfrom

caselaw

Privatelife

/freedomofthepress

SincetheHRAthetortofbreachofconfidencehasdevelopedintoarighttotheprotectionofprivateinform

ation,

throughthedevelopmentofthecommonlaw,butwithoutgivingdirecthorizontale

ffect

toECHRArticle8.

Balanceofprivacyandfreesp

eechinvolvesparallelanalysisinwhichneithertrumpstheother.Buttheweightgiven

toindividualinterestsinhealthandpsychologicalwellbeingandrespecthastendedtooutbalance

press

freedomunlessthecourtissatis

fiedthatapublicinterestin

publicationoutweighsit.

Aproportionalitytest,weighingtheinterestsofthetwosidesandpublicinterests,isappliedtoachievethebalan

ce.

Privatelife

/righttoahome/non-dis

crimination

Same-sexrelationshipsandrighttorespectforprivatelifeandhomehaveb

eengivenrecognitionand

status

throughConventioncompatibleinterpretationoflegislationregulatingthelandlordandtenantrelationship

,thus

implementingthepositiveob

ligationoftheUKtose

curetheECHRArticle8righttorespectforprivatelife

andtheArticle14rightnottobediscriminatedagainst.


7/38


France

FifthRepublicConstitution1958.Nob

illo

frightsintheConstitution,butthe1789Declarat

ionoftheRightsofManandthe

CitizenandthePreambletothe1946C

onstitutionaretreatedassourcesforhumanrightspr

otection.Monist,civillawsystem.

Privatespher

eeffect?

Constitutionalhumanrightsprotectionshavenotbe

engivendirecthorizon

taleffect(savepossiblyinone

Courd

ecassationcase)becauseo

fthelimitedroleoftheConseilconstitutionnel,thereluctanceoftheCourdecassation

tocite

caselaworrefertotheCo

nstitutioninitsdecisions,a

ndthetraditionofapublic/privatelawdivideinFrance

.

Article

55oftheConstitution(themonistarticle)allowsdire

ctapplicationofinternationaltreatiesbyFrenchcourts:this

hasled

tothedirecthorizontaleffectofECHRrightsin

France,givingrisetotheconventionalisationofp

rivate

law.ThejurisprudenceoftheStrasbourgcourtandthepositiv

eobligationofstatestopro

tectagainstviolationofrightsby

private

partieshaveledFrenchc

ourtstoapplythecase

lawoftheStrasbourgcourtdirectly,andtodevelop

horizo

ntalapplicationindirec

tly(throughinterpretation)aswell.TheCourdecassationmaysetasideF

rench

legislationthatisincompatiblewithaTreaty,includingtheECH

R.Thereremains,however,afearofjudge-madelaw.

Thefoc

usindirecthorizontale

ffec

tcaseshasbeenonrelatio

nshipswheretherearepowerinequalities,forinstance

employer/employee,landlord/tenan

t,press/individual.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Employment

Inuneq

ualrelationshipssuchasem

ployer/employeethestrongerpartymayonlyrestricttheweakerpartysrights,e.g.to

decide

wherehisfamilyhomeshallbe,ifhecanshowthat

thisisnecessarytoprotecttheemployerslegitimateinterests


8/38


9/38


Pressinvasionofprivacy.Before

theECHRtheemphasiswasontherighttoprivacyand

theissuewaswhetherthevictim

ofpressintrusionhadconsented.UndertheinfluenceoftheE

CHRmoreimportancetha

nhithertoisgiventotherightof

thePre

ssandthetworightsunderArticles8and10needtobebalancedbyap

roportionalitytest.

Dignity

Dignit

yisrecognisedasacons

titutionalprinciplewhic

hmayalsoapplyintheprivatesphere:itlimitstheright

ofthepresstophotographandreportonaccidentvictims.C

ontractsfordwarfthrowingsareunenforceableasinfr

inging

dignity,

evenifthepartiesagreeto

theterms.Dignityisavalu

ethatpervadesthelegalsystem.Article6oftheCivilCode

onord

republicjustifieslimitation

sonfreedomofcontractinthenameoftheprotectio

nofdignity.

Freedomofconscience/religion

Jewish

tenantscomplainedthattheelectricaldigicod

einstalledbytheirland

lordtocontrolaccesstothe

premisesinfringedtheirfreedom

ofreligionandofmoveme

nt,astheywerenotpermittedtousethemontheSabbath.

Theyclaimedthelandlordhadapositiveobligationnottointe

rferewiththeserights.The

Courdecassationoverruledthe

Courtofappealdecisioninfavourofthetenants,holdingthatsuchconsiderationscannotimposepositivedutieson

thelandlordiftheyarenotspecifiedinthecontract.


10/38


Germa

ny

BasicLaw(BL)1949includesBillo

fRightswithusualcivilandpoliticalr

ightsplusequalityofthesexesandprotectionagainst

discrimination.Italsoprovidesforh

umandignityasacorec

onstitutionalvalue.TheBundesverfassungsgericht(BVG)or

ConstitutionalCourthaspowertoset

asidelegislationthatisincompatiblewiththeBL,whic

hprevailsoverallotherlaw

,both

pre-andpost-1949,includingtheCivilCodeof1900andtheECH

R.Individualshavedirectac

cesstotheBVG.

Privatesphereeffect?

Rightsbindthelegislature,executiveandjudiciary.Noexpre

ssprovisionforprivate

sphereeffectexceptinrelation

tocertainexercisesoffreedomofassociationandanexceptionalrighttoresistattemptst

oabolishtheconstitutionalorder.

ThesereceivedirecteffectprotectionunmittelbareDrittwirk

ung.Theextentofthisform

ofprotectionislimitedbecause

ofconcerntoprotecttheautonomyofcivilsociety.

TheBV

Ghasalsodevelopedsome

indirecteffectmittelbare

Drittwirkung.Ithasheldthat

theBLhasaradiatinge

ffect

andem

bodiesafundamentalan

dobjectivesystemofvalues.TheBLplacesthestateunderanobligationtoprotect

human

dignityandthisjustifiesextendinghumanrightsprotectio

ntotheprivatesphere.This

isdonethroughaformofin

direct

horizontale

ffect(mittelbareDrittwirkung).Law,includingtheC

ivilCode,mustbeinterpretedcompatiblywiththeBL.Alaw

whichbreachesBLrightswillbeinvalidatedbytheBVG.

Inorde

rtoprotecttheautonomyofcivilsociety,therehastobeabalancingoftherigh

tsofbothpartiesinaprivate

disput

e.TheBVGwillonlyexerciseitsprotectivejurisdictioniftheinfringementissubstantialandaffe

ctsan

importantright,ifdamageisverylik

elyandifthebalancebetweenthepartiessoindicates.Thusprivatesphereeffectofhuman

rightsdoesnotaffectthenormalo

perationofprivatelawsave

inextremecircumstances,unlessspecificallyprovided

forby

alaw.T

hisisbecauseofconcernaboutlegalcertainty,sinceconstitutionalr

ightsareimpreciselydraftedandthejudges

mayno

tbewellequippedtoextendrightsprotectionintotheprivatesphere.


11/38


Academiccommentaryjustifiesprivatesphereeffectonthe

groundthatthestateisu

nderapositiveconstitutional

dutyt

oprotecthumanrights,butiscriticalofinterferencewithfreedomofcontrac

t.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Anemployerdismissedanemployeefordistributingpoliticalpamphletsduringworkingh

ours.Thedismissalwasuph

eldby

theFederalLabourCourt,butitw

asheldthattheBLprohibitionofdiscrimination

ongroundsofpoliticalviews

andth

efreedomofexpressionprovisionintheBLcouldplacelimitsontheemployersrightsunderlabour

law,in

ordertopreventveryunreasonableexerciseofprivatepower.Thedecisionthusacknowledgessomedirect

hori-

zontaleffectofBLrights.

Where

anauthorcriticisedanotherforhisinvolvementinthe

Naziregime,heshouldnotberestrainedbythecourtsfrom

future

criticismtoprotectthefin

ancialinterestsofthosehe

criticised.Theauthorsc

onstitutionalrighttohuman

personalityanddignity,whichlieattheheartoftheBL,sh

ouldbeprotectedviamitte

lbareDrittwirkung:Luth(195

8).

Publish

inghouseAcalledfortheboycottingofpublishinghouseBspublicationsandthreatenedtoendcommercialrela-

tionshipswithnewsagentswhost

ockedBspublications.The

BVGheldthatthebalanceneednotbeinfavour

ofAs

freespeechasagainstBscom

mercialinterests,andindeedBsfreespeechrightsentitledBtoaremedy

whichthelowercourtshadapositiveobligationtoprovide:B

linkfuer.

Abort

ion:whentherightsofapregnantwomanandunbornchildconflicted,thestateshouldprotecttheunborn

childs

righttolifeexceptwheretheburdenonthemotherofcontinuingthepregnancywouldbeintolerable.TheBVG

setoutadetailedschemeforconstitutionallyacceptablelegis

lationwhichthelegislature

induecoursecompliedwith.


12/38


Greec

e

WrittenConstitution,mostrecentlyrevised2001.Containsmanyhumanrightsprovisions.Monistcivillawsystem.

Privatespher

eeffect?

Constitutionalandother,e.g.international,humanrigh

tsexpresslyapplytothe

relationsbetweenindividuals

towhichtheyareappropriatesincethe2001constitutionalrevision(Article25(1)andsection3).However,theab

stract

nature

ofconstitutionalprinciples

(theyarenotself-executing)isnotadequatetofound

claimsandremedies:alink

with

privatelawisrequiredtoprovideaconduitforthetransferofconstitutionalrightstotheprivatesphere

sinceArticle25(1).IntheabsenceofexpressprovisionArticle

25(1)doesnotgivejudgesthepowertoapplyConstitu

tional

rightsh

orizontallyanddirectly.

TheAr

ticle25(1)principleisseen

asanobjective(publicp

olicy)justificationforprivatesphereprotection

,per-

meatingthewholelegalorde

r.BeforethisarticlewasincludedintheConstitutio

n,theoreticaldiscussioncentred

around

anumberofthemes:Drit

twirkung,suggestingthirdpartyeffect,wasrejectedasimplyingthatthein-

dividualintheprivatesphere

wasanoutcastofthestate-citizenrelationship;horizontale

ffectorinterper-

sonaleffectwerepreferredterms

.

TheadditionofArticle25(1)

hasputanendtoearliertheoreticaldiscussionaboutthebasisforhuman

rights

protectionwhetherit

wasorshouldbedirectorindirectDrittwirkung.Inthetheoreticaldebate

,hori-

zontaleffectwouldbedirectifco

nstitutionalr

ightswereenforcedindependentlyofexistingprivatelawsothatthe

effect

waslaw

creative.Thiswouldhave

beenunacceptable:itwouldhavebeeninbreachoftheseparationofpowersasu

nder-

stoodinGreece,sinceitwouldhavegiventhejudgealegislativ

epoweranditwouldhaveunderminedthepoweroftheleg-

islatortoregulateinterpersonalre

lationsthroughprivatelaw.

AnindirecthorizontalapproachseemedmoresuitedtotheGreeklegalsystem,involvingtheco-applica-

tiono

fconstitutionalrightsandprivatelawnormsthroughadialoguebetwe

enconstitutionalandprivate


13/38


14/38


Constitutionalrightsbeyondt

helaw.Inthecaseoftheconstitutionalprohibitionon

theadmissibilityofunlawfully

obtain

edevidence,thecourts

havedecidedinparticu

larcaseswhethersuchevidenceshouldbeadm

itted,

onthe

basisofarangeofcons

titutionalrights,includingdignity,privacyandfree

domofcommunicationasagainst

thesea

rchfortruthintrialsandtherightofdefence.Therehasbeennorecoursetopriv

atelawnorms.Thisisseenasa

formofdirecteffect.However,

difficultiesflowfromtheab

stractandgeneralnatureo

fconstitutionalprinciples.

Thesefourapproachesprovideco

ncreteeffectsforconstitutionalrightsinprivatelawinsteadofwhatwouldotherw

isebe

abstrac

tapplication.Theycombinelawcreativeeffect(whichisregardedasdirect)andhermeneuticorin-

terpre

tiveeffect(whichwouldbeindirect)butavoidingtheneedtocharacterisetheeffectspecificallyin

either

category.

Theroleofthejudgeisconsideredtobetoactasm

ediatorofconstitution

alrightsinprivatelaw.Thisis

partofhisroleintheseparationofpowersandnotabreach

ofit,andofhisdutiesofequalrespectforthelegislatorand

theCo

nstitutionandtogivejudic

ialprotectiontoindividuals.Hemusttakeintoaccou

nttheconstitutionalpositionsof

parties,andjustifyinhisdecisions

arefusaltoprotecttheirconstitutionalrights.Heneednotspecifywhetherheis

giving

directorindirecteffecttothem.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Article281oftheCivilCode

Emplo

yersautonomyrightinvolvesarighttomanageth

eenterprise,includingdism

issingemployees.Thecivilcourts

havein

vokedtheArticle281(abusiveenforcementofrights)toholdthattheemplo

yersautonomyrightis

con-

strainedbyfundamentalconstitutionalprinciplespr

otectingpersonalityan

ddignitysothattheemployer

mustjustifydismissaltothecourtsintermsoffinancialreaso

nsortheneedtopreserve

theviabilityoftheenterpriseor

propor

tionality.Employeeshaverights,derivedfromthecon

stitutionalprotectionofpe

rsonality,againstunjustified

deci-

sionsb

yemployers.Thustheco

urtshavepreventeddismissalonpersonalorp

oliticalgrounds,orwhenthey


15/38


havebeendisproportionatetothe

managementright.Thisis

notanexampleofindirecteffectbutofthedev

elop-

mentofconstitutionalrightsinprivatespheredisputesandabalancingproce

ss.

Article57

oftheCivilCode

Theprotectionoftheculturalandnaturalenvironment,protectedasbothasocialandacivilrightbyArticle

24(1)

oftheConstitution,canbeanelem

entoftheprivaterightt

opersonalityundertheC

ivilCode.Amonasticcomm

unity

atMeteoracomplainedwhenafamoussingersang,dancedan

dfilmedinsidethemonasteryinthepresenceofthemonks

andma

deandmarketedavideotopromoteherCD.Itwasheldtheprivatelawrightto

personalityincludedrespe

ctfor

theirnaturalandculturalenvironm

ent.Thecourtsfoundinfavourofthemonksandprohibitedthesingertous

ethe

photographicorvideotapedm

aterial.Thecaseshowshowacollectiveconstitutionalinterestsuchasth

een-

vironm

entcanacquireanindividualisticdimensionwhencombinedwithaprivatelawright.

Constitutio

nalrightsandspecificprivatelawnormsrenunciationofpaternity

Intheearly1980stheCivilCodewastakentomeanthatachildborninwedlockwasautomaticallyrecognis

edas

thech

ildofthemothershusbandandcouldnotrenouncetherelationshipifthey

werenotinfactbloodrelations;

onlyth

elegallyacknowledgedfathercouldrenouncetherelationshipunderArticles1471and1475oftheCivilCode.

Morerecently,thecourtshavedecidedthattheconstitutionalprotectionofd

ignity,theconstitutiona

land

CivilC

oderighttopersonalityandtheconstitutional

protectionofthefamilytakentogethermeanthata

childhastherighttodiscover

itstrueidentityaspartoftherighttopersonality.T

hisapproachisregardedin

some


16/38


Greektheoreticalliteratureasafo

rmofdirectDrittwirkung,b

ecauseitisseentobelaw-creative,fillingvacuumsinth

elaw,

ratherthaninterpretive.Ifthisisthecaseitisabreachofthe

separationofpowersasun

derstoodinGreece.

Useofunlawfullyobtainedevidence

ByArticle19(3)ofthe2001Const

itutionalrevision,useofso

meunlawfullyobtained

evidenceisprohibited.Thisin-

cludesevidenceconcerningtheprivatesphereoftheindividua

l.Thisprovisioncausesconflictsbetweenconstitutionalprin-

cipleso

utsideprivatelawdignity,privacy,freedomofcommunicationversusthesearch

fortruthintrialsandtherightof

theindividualtopresentevidenceinsupportoftheircasetothecourt.Beforethe2001constitutionalrevision,thecourts

werebalancingfreelybetweenconstitutionalprovisionsconce

rningtheprivatesphereoftheindividualandtheimportance

oftheuseofevidenceforthesearchoftruthpermittingingeneraltheuseandsubmissionofsuchevidence.Afterthecon-

stitutionalrevisionof2001,Article

19(3)haslimitedthewayc

ourtsappreciatesuchcases

intheoppositedirection,t

husin

favouringtheprivatesphere.There

by,thisarticleisinterpretedintwoways:whenitisappliedtothecriminaltrialitissub-

jectto

limitedexceptions,e.g.,the

interestintheprotectiono

flifeandthepresumptionofinnocence.Ontheother

hand,

whenitisappliedintheciviltrialitisconsideredtoprotecttheprivatesphereoftheindividualinanabsolutemanner.In

thosec

asesthecivilcourtshave

broughtintothebalanc

etheprotectionofdignity,theprivatesphereaspro-

viding

afoundationfortheen

joymentoffreedomofcommunicationbetweenindividuals.Thistransfo

rmsa

proceduralissueabouttheadmissibilityofevidenceintoasub

stantiveissuetodowithrights.Itisregardedasdirect

effect

asitisindependentofanyprivatelawnormandrestsonArticle19(3)oftheConstitutio

n.


17/38


India

WrittenCo

nstitutioncameintoeffect1950.Containsmanyhumanrightsprovisions.Dualistsuigenerisvariantofcommonlaw

system.

Privatespher

eeffect?

Funda

mentalhumanrights(m

ostlycivilandpoliticalrigh

ts)assetoutintheConstitutionandsomeofthosesetout

ininter

nationaltreatiesarebindin

gnotonlyonthestatebut,dependingonthete

xtoftheConstitutionandits

interp

retationbythecourts,a

lsoagainstprivateparties.

Thisis

conceptualisedasliability

fornon-stateaction,i.e.liabilityofnon-stateactors,thejustificationforthisliability

beingthatthestatehasfailedtotakestepstoprotectindivid

ualsfromabuseorhascon

nivedatabuse,inwhichcasethe

courtm

ayimposeliabilityonthenon-stateactor.

TheConstitutioncontainsjudiciallyenforceablefundamentalrights,aswellasDirectivePrinciplesofStatePolicy

andFu

ndamentalDuties.Thelatterentailtheideathatcitizensshouldrespecttherightsofothers.

ThehistoryofIndiasuggeststhatseriousthreatstoindividualsrightscomefromprivatepartiesmore

than

fromthestate.Thespiritofthe

constitutionistopromote

thewelfareofallandthecourtshaveadoptedthisspiritin

developingtheeffectofrightsintheprivatesphere.

Allcourtshavejurisdictionto

enforcethefundamentalrightsagainstallbodies,publicorprivate.

TheConstitutionsexpressprovisionforstateliabilityforbre

achofsomefundamentalrightsincludesaverybroaddef-

inition

ofthestate,whichthecourtshaveextendedtoinc

ludemanybodiesthatwouldberegardedasprivatein

other

jurisdic

tions:bodiesthatareagentsofthestateincludingcorp

orations,societiesandotherbodies:e.g.,educationalandre-

search

institutes,co-operativeban

ks,electricityboardsandprivateeducationalinstitutions(boundtorespectarightto

equality).ButtheBoardofCricketControlhasbeenheldnottobeanagency

ofthestate.Courtsare

not,

howev

er,includedinthestate

andtheremedyforajudg

esfailureinjudicialdecisionstorespectrightsisthea

ppeal.


18/38


Thedutyofthestatetoprote

ctrightsgivesrisetoliabilityofprivateparties,developedbythecourts,for

breachesoffundamentalrights.

Inthe

Indianversionofdualismandinsupportoftheruleoflaw,humanrightsprotectionsininternationalinstru-

mentstowhichIndiaisparty,and

inothers,canbeenforce

dwithoutlegislativesupportaslongastheyarenot

inconsistentwithIndianlaw.O

thertreatyprovisionsdon

othavedirecteffect.

Thereisnopubliclaw/privatelawdichotomyinIndiaexc

eptinrelationtotheremedyofjudicialreview.Human

rights

theory

inIndiarequiresthestatet

obringforwardlegislationtoremoveinequalitiesandindignitiesintheprivateaswellas

thepublicsphere.

Libera

lPublicInterestLitigatio

n(PIL)rulesenabletherightsofthepoortobejudicia

llyenforcedagainstprivateb

odies.

TheSupremeCourtmay,and

does,makerecommendationsandgivedirectionstogovernmentasto

how

obligationstopromotehumanrightsshouldbefulfille

d.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Equality

Unreas

onablecontractualclausesmaybestruckdownasinfringingequality.

Sexualharassmentintheworkp

laceisabreachoftherighttogenderequalityandliberty,andabreachofinternationalhu-

manrightsnorms.InPILthecou

rtissueddirectionsforbo

thpublicandprivateemployersastohowtoprotectthe

women

srightswhichwouldbebindinguntilParliamentlegislatedonthematter.

Employment

Rights

againstforcedlabourandchildlabourareenforcedagainstprivateemployers(andresponsiblestatebodies)as

beingcontrarytotherighttodignity.Heredirectiveprinciples

maybeenforcediftheyare

recognisedasfallingwithinfunda-

mental

rights.


19/38


Therighttolife

Thisincludesarighttohealthagainstprivatepollutersanddistributorsofinjuriousdrugsorchemicals.In

some

casesthecourtdirectsthestatetotakemeasurestoprotect

therights.

Privacy,ma

rriage,autonomy

Where

apersonwhoisHIV()findsaplannedmarriageiscalledoffbecauseahospitalhasdisclosedhiscondition

tohis

bride,therightofthebridean

dthebridegroomhave

tobebalanced.Thedisclosurewasnotanunlawfulb

reach

ofhisp

rivacy.

Environmentalp

rotection

Freedomfrompollutionispartoftherighttolifeandale

aseholderwhohadcaused

pollutionhadhisleasecancelled

bythecourt.

Untouchab

ilityandfreedomofrelig

ion

Protec

tionofuntouchablesdo

esnotinvolveanunlawfulinterferencewithfreedomo

freligion.

UnfairproselytisingbyChristia

nsisaviolationoffreed

omofconscience.


20/38


Irelan

d

WrittenCo

nstitution1937.HumanrightsincludedintheConstitu

tionandtheEuropeanCou

rtofHumanRightsAct200

3(the

latternotentrenched).Dualistcommonlawbasedsystem.


Mostrightsareprotectedino

rdinarylawbyacombinationofstatutesandcommo

nlawandequity.

AdditionalprotectionisprovidedundertheConstitution,includingexpressandimplied(unenumer

ated)

rights.Expressprotectionforpersonalrightssuchasequality,fairtrial,libertyetc.a

nd,since1983,byconstitutional

amendmentrighttolifeoftheunb

ornchild.Unenumeratedp

ersonalrightsincludelivelih

oodandprivacytocommunicate.

TheEuropeanCourtofHuma

nRightsAct2003provid

esadditionalprotectionsviaadutyofcompatibleinter-

pretation.Butthereisnodutyo

nthecourtstodevelopthecommonlawcompatiblywiththeECHR.Thereis

asyet

littlecaselawonthis.

Legal

recognitionisgiventou

nderlyingconstitutionalvalues,e.g.humandignity.

Private

sphereprotectionisconc

eptualisedasdirecthoriz

ontaleffectofConstitu

tionalrights,developedbythe

Suprem

eCourtthroughawardsofdamagesfortheconstitu

tionaltort.ThisisbasedontheviewthattheConstitution

isthefoundationallegalnormtow

hichallothernormsmust

conform.Itisthecourtsdutytoprovideprotection.

Noge

neraldistinctionismadebetweenpublicandpr

ivatebodies.

Human

rightsissuesmayberaised

beforeallcourts.

Buttheoriginaldoctrineofdirecthorizontaleffectisno

wsubjecttomodifications:itonlyappliesifordinarylaw

providesplainlyinadequateprotec

tionfortherightorisman

ifestlydeficient;unlessthat

isthecaseitcannotbereliedon

toshap

eexistingtortsoradjustad

jectivallaw,e.g.retheburdenofproof;thereisthusresistancetoindirecthoriz

ontal

effect.Thereis,however,caselaw

wherethecourtshaveinterpretedlegislationsoastobecompatiblewithconstitutional

rights,forinstancetradeunionleg

islation.


21/38


Unclearwhethertheconstitutionaltortisactionablepe

rseoronlyonproofofd

amage,whetherliabilityis

strict,

whethe

rallconstitutionalrightsa

reactionableintheprivatesphere(e.g.,theequalityclause),howthebalancing

processworksintheprivatespherewhereconflictingrights

andinterestsareatstake.

Modific

ationstodirecthorizontale

ffectinmorerecentcaselaw

reflectashiftfromnatur

allawtheorytoademocratic

approach.

Adhocliberaljudicialapproachproduceslegaluncertaintyanduntheorisedand

unresolveddifficulties,e.g.,inthe

anti-abortioncases,whichseekto

protecttherighttolifeof

theunbornchildbutimpo

seliabilityonprivateactorswho

couldn

otknowtheywereactingunlawfullyandwereexercisingfreedomstodisseminateinformationetc.oralsoseekto

balance

therightstolifeoftheunbornchildandthemother.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Trade

unionsStrikeinsupporto

fclosedshopheldtobecon

trarytoexpressconstitutionalrighttofreedomofassoc

iation:

statute

tothecontrarydisapplied

andinjunctiongranted.

Strike

toforcedismissaloffem

aleemployeescontrarytoimpliedconstitution

righttoearnalivelihoo

d.The

legislationwasinterpretedsoas

tobecompatiblewiththeConstitution.

Dismissalofemployeesrefusingto

signnewemploymentcontractsrequiringunionmembershipisaconstitutional

tort.

Tradeunionactivitywhichclosesdownschoolsisabreachofthepupilsrighttoeducation.

Naturaljusticerequirementsin

privatedecisionmaking.

Abortionwouldbeinbreachoftheunbornchildsexpressco

nstitutionalrighttolife,and

thusdisseminationofinform

ation

abouta

bortionisrestrainable.T

hesuicidalm

othersrighttolifesh

ouldbebalancedagainsttheunbornchildsright.Thebalanc

ewas

infavourofthemother.


22/38


Israe

l

Nowritten

constitution,butaseriesof

BasicLawsperceivedaschaptersinthefutureconstitu

tion.AtpresenttheBillof

Rights

iscomposed

oftwoBasicLawsenactedin1992:HumanDignityandLiberty,FreedomofOccupation.Theformerexplicitlyprotects

life,bodilyintegrity,dignity,property,pers

onalli

berty,movementandprivacy.Freedomofspeech,association,religionandconscience

andequality

arenotexplicitlyincluded

butcourtstendtotreattheserightsasderivativesofhumandignity.Courtsclaim

juris-

dictiontoreviewprimarylegislationforcompatibilitywiththeseB

asicLaws.

Privatespher

eeffect?

Untilrecently,theassumption,inspiredbytheliberaltr

adition,wasthathumanrightsonlyboundthe

state

andotheradministrativeauth

orities.

BasicLawsprotectmanyrightsandthishasaffectedtheprivatesphere.

Ordin

arytortlawhasalways

beenseenasprotectin

gthemostbasicrights

noteconceptofrightasnot

necessarilyimplyingaspeciallypro

tectedstatus.Tortlawisba

sedonlegislationbutisinspiredbycommonlawtradition.

Thetraditionofanunwritten

constitutionasdevelopedbythecourtshaslong

protectedmanyofthe

usual

rights,butuntiltheenactmen

toftheBasicLawsof1992thecourtshavenot

assertedarighttoinvalidate

actsoftheParliament(Knesse

t).ThetwohumanrightsBasicLawswereinterpretedbytheSupremeC

ourt

asempoweringthecourtstocarryoutjudicialreview

ofprimarylegislation.

ThevaluesimplicitandexplicitintheBasicLawsprovidetheframeworkforthedevelopmentofthecommonlawprotection

ofhum

anrights.

Theeffectofhumanrightsin

theprivatesphereisc

onceptualisedastheco

nstitutionalisationofprivate

lawandtheconstitutionalisatio

nofhumanrights.Fore

xample,itaffectstheba

lancingprocessintortlawby

increa

singtheweightgivento

constitutionalrightsin

thebalance.


23/38


Theco

mmonviewisthathum

anrightshaveindirecte

ffectintheprivatesphe

reasaresultoftheinfluen

ceof

BasicLa

wsleadingtorights-sympatheticinterpretation

oflegislativetermssuch

aspublicpolicy,unlawfulness

andgoo

dfaith,developmentof

thecommonlawinlin

ewiththevaluesinBa

sicLaws,andthebalan

cing

processwhererightsconflict.

Somejudicialstatementssuggestpossibledirectapplication

ofbasiclawinsomecase

s,e.g.wheretherighttolife

isat

stake,bu

tthedevelopmentofaseparateconstitutionallaw

oftortshasbeenrejectedsofarbecauseofconc

erns

ofover

lapandconflictwithordinarytortlawandtheneedtodevelopanews

etofgeneraldoctrinessuch

ascaus

ation,vicariousliability,

remediesetc.

Courtsrefertovaluessuchasdignity,equalityandnon-discriminationindevelopingthelaw.

Caretakenbycourtstobalance

conflictingprivaterights,andrightsandpublicinte

rests.

Recogn

itionofpowerofprivateactorsgrewwithprivatisationbutthecourtsdo

notusethisasajustificatio

nfor

effectsinprivatelaw.

Develo

pmentofjudge-made,commonlawprinciplessuchasequalityinformjudicialreasoning.

Thecourtsareexplicitaboutim

portanceofrightsfors

ocialvaluessuchassexequalityandnotjusttoindividuals.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Contra

ctTheprincipleofpublicpolicyhasenabledtheco

urtstoprotectfreedomofoccupation,dignity,freedo

mto

organise

,accesstocourts,non-disc

riminationfromcontractua

linfringements.


24/38


Pre-co

ntractarbitraryindividu

alpreferencespermittedin

thenameofcontractualautonomy.Groupdiscriminationin

pre-contractmaybeconsideredunlawfulbadfaithorevena

tortiousbreachoftheBasicLawrighttohumandignity,but

thereisnocaselawoftheSuprem

eCourtonthismatter.

Somes

tatutoryprovisionsprohibitdiscriminationandimplyatortiousrightnottobediscriminatedagainst.Theseare

especiallylawsonemploymentand

accesstopublicservices.BasicLaw:HumanDignityandLibertyhasinspiredthelegislation

ofsomeofthesespecificlaws(for

exampleregardingsexualh

arassment).

Tort

traditionally,tortlawhasbeenperceivedasprotecting

manyhumanrights.

Thebasiclawshaveindirectlyinflu

encedthedevelopmentof

tortlaw,forinstancethecourtsrefertotheimportanceof

autonomy,butnotthroughdirecteffectintheprivatesphere

basiclawsareprobab

lytoovaguetogiverise

toa

constitutionallawoftortsand

directeffectwouldcreatep

roblemsinclashesbetween

individualr

ightsandsocialvalues.

Butthe

basiclawsmayprovideres

idualbasisforliability.

TheBa

sicLawHuman:DignityandLibertyhasinspired

thedevelopmentoftortio

usliabilityforsexualharassment

andunlawfuldiscrimination.

Tortof

breachofstatutoryduty

basiclawrighttodignit

yhasnotbeenappliedsofarasabasisforthiscause

ofaction.Thismayresultalso

fromthevaguenessand

generalityofthedutyimpliedbytheBasicLaw

.

Rights

todamagesforpurelo

ssese.g.pecuniaryandnon

-pecuniarylosses,havebeenextendedtoprovideremedies

forbreachofrighttodignity.

Rightshavebeendevelopedtodamagesforlossofautonomy

anddignitywheninforma

tionhasbeenwithheld

from

apatie

ntmakingadecision.

Righttoreputationisseenasanaspectofdignitybutitdoesnottrumpfr

eespeech,eventhough

free

speechisnotexpresslyprotec

tedinaBasicLaw.

Award

sofcompensationforin

terferencewithdignity,autonomyandequalityintortlawhaveincreased.


25/38


Italy

WrittenCo

nstitution1948,asamended.BillorRightsincludedintheConstitution.Monistcivillawsystem.


TheConstitutionincludesreferen

cestovaluesandprinciplessuchasdignity,andr

ightsandfreedoms,andlists

mostoftheusualcivilandpo

liticalrights(health,reputation,freedomofthoughtetc).TheConstitutionalCourt

haselaboratedontheseand

recognisesconstitution

allyprotectedinterests

.Inviolablerightsdonotinclude

economicfreedomsandthebalancemayfallinfavourofsocialr

ights.

Thesu

premacyofthelegislatoris

regardedasasafeguarda

gainstjudicialsubjectivity.

TheConstitution,since2001,providesforthesupremacyandd

irectapplicationofinternationalconventionsonceratified.

Before,subsequentlyenactedItalianlawswereapttoimpliedly

repealsuchprovisions;this

shouldnotbethecaseany

more,

althoughscholarssharedifferento

pinionsandtheConstitutionalCourthasnotshedanylightonthisissueasyet.O

nthe

otherhand,inmostinstancescourtswillseektointerpretItalianlawcompatiblywithinternationaltreaties.

TheC

onstitutionmakesnoe

xpressprovisionforprivatesphereeffectbutthecourtshavedevelop

edit.

Thereis,however,notmuchcaselawanditisnotabigissuesincetheordinarylawgene

rallyprovidesrightsprotectionin

accord

ancewiththeConstitution.

Allcourtsmayreferissuesto

theConstitutionalCou

rtwhichdecidesuponthe

constitutionalityoflawsortheir

interpr

etation,ratherthanofparticulardecisionsoracts.Ordinarycourtsmayalsointer

pretandapplylawsinconformity

withth

eConstitution.

Inprivatespherecasesthecourts

normallyseektointerpretlawscompatiblywith

theConstitutionmittelbare

Drittw

irkingorindirecteffect-butifthereisalacunain

thelawortheyconside

ritnecessarytheymay

apply

Const

itutionalrightsdirectly

unmittelbareDrittwirk

ung.Thecourtsmayalsorefertointernationaltreaties

andth

ejurisprudenceofinternationalcourtsinaidoftheirinterpretationofordinarylaw.


26/38


Develo

pmentofprivatespheree

ffecthasbeeninfluencedb

yjudicialawarenessof

inequalitiesbetweenprivate

partie

s.

Conflictsofrightscaseshavebeenseenbytheord

inarycourtstoinvolve

questionsastowhich

right

trump

sanotherright,andthesecourtsdonotconside

rproportionalityissues,whicharetheconcernofthe

Const

itutionalCourt.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Employme

nt

Non-unionisedemployeesmayre

lyontherighttofairp

ayundertheConstitution

intheirclaimstotheben

efitof

termsandconditionsagreedwith

employersbytradeunions.

EmployeesmayenforcetheConstitutionalr

ighttoaweekly

dayofrestandannualp

aidholidaysagainstprivateem-

ployers.

Employersmustprotecttheiremployeesfrombullying(mob

bing)andcompensatethembyvirtueoftherighttodignity

underart.2oftheConstitution.

Contracta

ndtortlaw

Theco

urtshavedevelopednew

headsofnon-economiclossorcompensationfornon-pecuniarydamagesin

bothcontractandtortlawandm

aygrantinjunctionsthroughinterpretationofthe

Constitutionandconstitutionally

compatibleinterpretationofthec

ivilcode:hencetheconstitutionalrighttogoodhealthhasgivenrisetoawards

ofcom

pensationforinterferencewiththatrightwhichwasnotformerlyprovidedun

derthecivilcodeasoriginallyin-

terpreted.


27/38


Freedomofpoliticale

xpressionvspropertyrights

Owner

sofaprivateshoppingcent

rewereorderedtopermit

politicalcampaignerstodistributeleafletsinthecommonar-

eas,an

exampleofunmittelbareDrittwirkungthefreespeechrighttrumpingthepropertyright.

Freedomofexpressionvsreligious

freedomofassociation

Catho

licchurchauthoritiesfr

eedomofreligionentitle

sthemtoapproveornotapprovetheappointmentofteach-

ersortheirdismissalatprivateco

llegesdespitetheinterferencewiththeirfreedomthat

thisinvolves.

Memb

ersofideologicallyorie

ntedassociationsarefr

eetowithdrawfromthe

associationdespiterulestothe

contraryofthatassociation.


28/38


29/38


ThereisdebateaboutwhethertheBORAcompelsright

s-consistentcommonla

worwhetherjudgesshouldonly

applythevaluesoftheBORA

;inpracticethevaluesapproachseemstoapply,butt

heremaybenopracticaldif-

ferenc

eintheoutcomeofeitherapproach.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Acom

monlawtortofunreasonableinvasionofprivac

ytofillalacunainthecommonlawhasbeendeve

loped

onthe

basis(a)thatitisrequiredbyinternationalconventions,e.g.theICCPR,butthelim

itonfreedomofspeechthatthis

involvesmustbenomorethanare

asonablelimitdemonstrablyjustifiedinafreeanddemo

craticsocietyand(b)thatp

rivacy

isaBO

RAvaluewhichshouldinfo

rmthedevelopmentofthe

commonlawandbegivenappropriateweight.Thecommon

lawsho

uldnotdevelopsoastoinfringerights.Thisisaformofdevelopmentalindirecteffect.

Thelawofdefamationhasbeendevelopedtoprotectth

efreedomofspeechofthepressthroughareasonable

error

defence,relyingonsubstantivecommonlawreasoningleadingtotheconclusio

nthatsuchjudicialdevelopment

wasappropriateratherthanontheBORAtolegitimatethed

evelopment.

Inseveralcasesconfidentialityo

finformationhasbeenr

ecognisedbutdecisions

abouttheawardofrem

edies

havet

akenintoaccountthedefendantsfreedomof

expressionandpublicinterestsintheopennessof

court

proceedings.Thusaninjunctionpreventingthebroadcastofa

(private)confessiontomurderbyapersonacquitted

ofthe

offence

wasrefusedontheground

oflegitimatepublicconcern.


30/38


31/38


Spain

WrittenCo

nstitution1978.Billo

fRightsinTitleIoftheConstitution,especiallyArticles1438.Monistsystem,buttreaty

rights

arenotrem

ediableunlessalsoprotectedintheConstitution.Civillawsystem.


Huma

nrightsarebothobjectiveandsubjectiverights.

Althoughthereisnoexpressp

rovisionforhorizontaleffectintheConstitution,itestablishesfreedom,justice

andequalityassuperiorlegal

values.

TheConstitutionalsoprovidesthatcitizensandpublicauthoritiesareallsubjecttotheConstitution.

TheC

onstitutionalCourtmustguaranteerespectfortheconstitution,includin

gfundamentalrightsby,inter

alia,privateparties.Thepublicorprivatenatureoftheallegedviolatorofarigh

tisimmaterial.Thejurisdiction

ofthe

ConstitutionalCourtundertherecursodeamparoto

hearcasesinvolvinghorizo

ntale

ffectrestsonthealle

gation

thattheordinariocourtfailedtofu

lfilitsroleinprotectingrights:itisasupervisoryjurisdiction.Butthisisnotregardedas

making

thehorizontale

ffectindirect,unlikethepositioninG

ermany.

Theeffectofhumanrightsintheprivatesphereisconceptualisedasdirecthorizontal

application.

Butthe

rearedifferencesbetweenobligationsonpublicauthoritiesandprivateparties.E.g.p

ublicauthoritieshavepo

sitive

obliga

tionstorespecttheConstitution,whileprivate

partieshavenegativedu

tiestoabstainfromviolating

theConstitution.

Some

rightsapplyequallyinbothprivaterelationshipsandrelationshipswithpublicbodies(e.g.therightto

strike),othersonlyapplyvertically

,e.g.therighttoafairtrial.Whenprivaterightsclasht

heyhavetobebalanced.

Theco

urtsmustinterprettherig

htssetoutintheConstitu

tioncompatiblywiththein

ternationalinstrumentsto

which

Spainisparty,butarightrecognisedonlyinatreatyand

notintheSpanishCons

titutionasinterpretedbythe

Const

itutionalCourtisnotre

mediable.


32/38


There

aredifferentcategorie

sofrightsintheConstitution.Fundamentalrightsenjoystrongerproc

edural

protectionagainstrepealoramen

dmentthanconstitution

alrights.Muchimportanceisattachedtofactthatn

either

setof

rightsrequiresimplementinglegislation,andtothedifferencesbetweenthejurisdictionoftheord

inario

courtsandtherecursodeamp

aroinrelationtorights.

OnlytheConstitutionalCour

t,towhichsuchissuesm

aybereferred,mayinv

alidatealawthatiscon

trary

tothe

Constitution.Apartfrom

thattheordinariocourtshavejurisdictiontohearchallengestodecisionsandactionsin

rightscases,andappealliesfromt

hemtotherecursodeamparo,inbothverticalandhorizontaleffecthumanrightscases.

Allco

urtsmustinterpretlawssoastobecompatible

withtherightssetout

intheConstitution.The

reare

noseparatespecialisedcourtsdealingwithconstitutionalissues.Thisisdifferentfromthe

positioninGermanywhere

issues

ofhum

anrightsintheprivatespheremaynotbereferredto

theConstitutionalCourt/B

undesverfassungsgeright.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Employmentlawdismissalo

faworkerforpublicly

criticisinghisemployer

involvedabalancingofth

eem-

ployeesconstitutionalrighttofreedomofexpressionagainst

theemployersinterests.Th

eemployeemustactingoo

dfaith

butwa

snotsubjecttoagenericdutyofloyalty.Hisrightswereonlytobemodifiedtotheextentstrictlynecessaryforthe

correctandefficientdevelopment

oftheemployersproductiveactivity.

Dismis

salforlegalexerciseofafundamentalrightwouldbeu

nfairandunlawful.

Thebu

rdenliesontheemployertojustifytherestrictionofanemployeesright.


33/38


UnitedStates

WrittenCo

nstitution1787.Billo

fRigh

tsaddedtotheConstitutionbyConstitutionalAmen

dments1791.Dualistsyste

m.All

stateshaveacommonlawsystemexceptLouisiana(civillaw).Fede

rallawisbasedonthetextoftheConstitution,statutes.

Privatespher

eeffect?

TheC

onstitutiononlyproscribesstateactionthatbreachesconstitutionalrights.Individualsarenotdirectly

boundtohonourconstitutionalrights.Somecaselawsuggeststhatthefactthatacourtenforcesaprivaterightinvolves

stateaction.

Some

indirecthorizontaleffec

torimpactofconstitut

ionalrightsonprivatep

ersonsdoesexist;e.g.if

state

respon

sibilitieshavebeendelegatedtoorassumedbyprivatebodies,iftherewasstateinvolvementinprivateaction,

orstatutoryauthorityfororapprovalo

finfringements.

Thereissomestrongindirecth

orizontaleffectonthecommonlaw.

ThetextoftheConstitution

isexplicitthatitisb

indingonlyongovernm

entandpublicauthorities.

Individualsarenotdirectlyboundtohonourconstitutionalrightsassuch.

Complexandconfusingareaoflaw

withstrongdissentsinsomecaseswherestateactionw

asnotfound.Strongresistance

tohor

izontaleffectofconstitutionalrightsintheabsenceofstateaction.Butsom

everyartificialorstrained


34/38


reasoningtryingtoreconcile

stateactionrequireme

ntwithprotectionofconstitutionalrightsinprivate

relationshipsin,e.g.,

ShelleyvKra

emerandNYTvSullivan.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Acom

panytownmaynotbant

hedistributionofreligiousliteratureonitspavements

(MarshvAlabama).

Apriv

atelyownedshoppingm

allmayforbidmeetingsan

dleafletingonitspremises

(HudgensvNLRB).

Court

enforcementofabreachofconstitutionalrights,e.g.adiscriminato

ryrestrictivecovenant,may

count

asstateactionthusgivin

grisetorightsprotection.(ShelleyvKraemer).

State

commonlaworstatuto

ryrules,e.g.relibellaw

s,mayberegardedass

tateactionwhichbrings

inthe

protectionofconstitutionalr

ights

.Thisapproachhassurfacedinfreespeechcases.Itisstrongindirecthorizontaleffect

(NYTv

Sullivan).

Saleof

goodsunderaliendoesnotamounttoabreachofdueprocessrights,evenifthereisstatutoryprovision

which

couldhave,butdidnot,provideprotectionfortheowner(Fla

ggBrosvBrooks).

Failurebysocialservicestoprotectachildfromviolen

cebyaparentdoesnotam

ounttostateaction(DeSh

aneyv

Winnebago).


35/38


EuropeanConvention

onHumanRights


Proced

ures:ByArticle34ECHR

complaintsmayonlybemadetotheECHRaboutviolationsbytheContractingP

arties,

andnotthereforebyprivatepartie

sstateactiondoctrine

.Butdirectstateresponsibilityextendstobreachesbyprivate

parties

insomeinstances,forinstanceifthebodyisexercisingapublicfunction.

Evenif

theconductcomplainedofasaviolationofaConventionrightemanatesfromapurelyprivatebody,thestatemay

beunderapositiveobligationunderArticle1tosecuretheclaimantsrights,e.g.byachangeinthelawand/orcompensation.

ThepositiveobligationsdoctrinedevelopedbytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights

introducedindirecthoriz

ontal

effect

tothesubstantiveprovisio

nsintheECHRintheCon

tractingStates.Itrecognise

sthatnotonlydostates

have

negativeobligationsnottointer

ferewithrights,butalsoob

ligationstosecurethatrightsareeffectivelyprot

ected

evenagainstinterferencebyp

rivateparties.

Theproportionalitytestisconcernedwithwhetherthestatehasbeenguiltyofexcessiveinactioninfailing

topro

tecttherightinquestion,andisdesignedtoachieveafairbalancebetweencom

petingrightsandpublicinterests;

thesecondparainArticles811w

illberelevant.Statesenjoy

awidemarginofappreciationhere.

TheE

CHRhaslaiddownprinciplesforbalancingcompetingrightsandpublicinterestswhichineffecttran

spose

theve

rticalprocesstothehorizontalsphere.

TheEC

HRrequiresthecourtsofContractingStatestointe

rpretprivatelawinstru

ments(e.g.wills)comp

atibly

witht

heConvention,whichis

alivinginstrumentthe

interpretationofwhich

maychangeovertime.

ThefollowingConventionrightshavebeenextendedto

theprivatesphere:freedomofassemblyandassoci-

ation,

privateandfamilylife,r

ighttoproperty,andtheunqualifiedrightstolife,freedomfromtortur

eand

expulsion,prohibitionofslaveryandforcedlabour,protectionfromunlawfuldetention.


36/38


Ineach

instancethestatemayb

eunderobligationstoprovideprotectionsaga

instprivateinterference,for

instancebytheprovisionofprotectivelegislationand

criminalandcivillawen

forcementmeasures.

Examplesfrom

caselaw

Righttoproperty/positiveobligation

Housesdestroyedbyalandslidecausedbyanexplosion

inarubbishtip.Thedomesticcourtrefusedcompensation.

Heldthatthestateshouldtakepositivemeasuresofprotectio

nwherethereisadirectlinkbetweenthemeasureswhich

anapplicantmaylegitimatelyexpectfromtheauthoritiesand

hiseffectiveenjoymentofh

ispossessions.

Privatelife/compatibleinterpretatio

nofprivatelawinstruments

Awillp

rovidedthatpropertycouldonlybeinheritedbyasonofalegitimateandcanonicalmarriage.Thedomestic

court

heldthatthisdisqualifiedanadoptedchild.Held,thewillshouldbeinterpretedcompatiblywithArticle8.An

issue

ofinterferencewithprivateandfam

ilylifecouldonlyariseund

ertheConventionifthenationalcourtsassessme

ntof

thefac

tsordomesticlawwere

manifestlyunreasonableorarbitraryorblatan

tlyinconsistentwiththe

fun-

damen

talprinciplesoftheConvention.Therewasnothin

gintherelevantwillsuggestingthatthewordsonindicated

onlybio

logicalsonsorthatthetestatorintendedtoexcludeadoptedgrandchildrenfrominheritingherproperty.Inexercising

itsEuropeansupervisoryrole,

theCourtcouldnotremainpassivewhereana

tionalcourtsinterpretation

ofalegalactappearedunreasonable,arbitraryor,asintheapplicantscase,blatantlyinconsistentwiththe

prohib

itionofdiscrimination

establishedbyArticle

14andmorebroadlywiththeprinciplesunderlyin

gthe

Conven

tion.Thedomesticcourtsinterpretationamountedtothejudicialdeprivationofan

adoptedchildsinheritancerights.

(Butthisapproachinterfereswiththetestatorsrights,apoint

thatledonejudgetoadissentingopinion.)


37/38


Competing

rightstoprivacyandfreespeech/balancingpro

cess

VonHa

nnover:Thepresspublishedphotosofapublicfigureinaneverydaysituation.Thedomesticcourtrefusedaninju

nction

forinvasionofprivacyonthegro

undthatthepublichadalegitimateinterestinthelifeofapublicfigure.Heldth

atthe

respon

dentstatedidnotfulfilits

obligationtosecureth

eapplicantsrighttore

spectforherprivatelifeand

correspondence.TherehadconsequentlybeenaviolationofA

rticle8.Thedomesticcourthadnotstruckafairba

lance

betweenthecompetingrightsandthepublicinterest.Photogra

phswereaparticularlyobjectionableintrusionintopriva

telife.

Thebalancingofthetwocompetin

grightsrequiredconsidera

tionalsoofthecontributionthatthepublishedphoto-

graphsandarticlesmadetoa

debateofgeneralinterest,inthiscasenone.Iftherehadbeenalegitimate

pub-

licinterestintheinformation,itshouldyieldtotheclaimantsrighttoprivacy

sincesheexercisednopublic

function.Shehadalegitimateexpectationthatherp

rivacywouldbeprotectedbylaw.

Craxi:O

nthereportingofprivateconversationsofpublicfigurestheCourtheldthatevenpublicfigureshavethe

right

torespectfortheirprivatelivesandconversationsofapurelyprivatenatureshouldnothavebeenpublished.

Public

ationbythepressdidnotcorrespondtoapressingsocialneed.Therefore,theinterferencewiththe

appli-

cantsrightsunderArticle81oftheConventionwasnotproportionatetothelegitimateaimswhichcouldhave

beenpursuedandwasconsequentlynotnecessaryinade

mocraticsociety.

Righttoprotestvspropertyright/thebalance

Appleby:ownerofaprivateshop

pingmallrefusedtoallow

theapplicanttosetupastallandcanvaspoliticalv

iews.Held,

freedomofexpressionwasnotunlimited.Thepropertyrightsoftheowneroftheshoppingcentrealsohadtobe

taken

intoco

nsideration.Ifabaronaccesstopropertywere

toresultinthelackofanyeffectiveexerciseoffree-

domofexpressionapositive

obligationcouldarisefo

rthestatetoprotecttheenjoymentofConve

ntion

rights

byregulatingproperty

rights.Buttheapplicants

hadalternativemeansofc

ommunicatingtheirviewstothe

public.TheCourtdidnotfindthatthegovernmenthadfailedtocomplywithanypositiveo

bligationtoprotecttheapplicants

freedomofexpression.


38/38


Positiveobligationsandqualifiedrights

Freedomo

fassociationandassembly

Wheredomesticlegislationauthorisesinterferencew

ithemployeesfreedom

ofassociationbyemployers,

asinc

losedshoplegislation,stateresponsibilityiseng

aged.

Theprincipleofpositiveobligationsimposesarequiremento

nstateauthoritiestoensurethattheparticipantsin

apeacefuldemonstrationare

notsubjectedtophysicalviolencebycounter-demonstrators.

Respectforfamilylife

Thestatewillbeunderapositive

obligationtoensurethat

aparentisnotdeprive

dofcontactwithchildrenby

theot

herparent.

Where

familylifeisdisruptedbypr

ivatelygeneratednighttime

noisepollution,thestatem

aybeliablefornotenfo

rcing

noisereductionlawstoprotectthefamily.

Positiveobligationsandunqualified

rights

Righttolife

Inadditiontotheobligationtoimplementpreventivemeasurestoensuretheprotection

oflifewithinastatesjurisd

iction,

thereisanadditionalobligation

toconductaneffectiveinvestigationintolossesoflifeandpunishpr

ivate

individualsandothernon-stateactorsthatarefoundrespo

nsible.

TheEC

HRimposesadutyonastatetosecuretherighttolifebyputtinginplaceeffectivecriminallawprovisions

todete

rthecommissionofoffences,backedupbylawenforcem

entmachineryforthepreve

ntion,suppressionandpunishment

ofbrea

chesofsuchprovisions.

summary of horizontal effect of constns.pdf

Documents