CURIA - Documents
38 of 58
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?docid=2320...
guaranteed in Article 5 of the ECHR (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 February 2016, N.,
C‑601/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:84, paragraph 47; of 28 July 2016, JZ, C‑294/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:610,
paragraph 48; and of 19 September 2019, Rayonna prokuratura Lom, C‑467/18, EU:C:2019:765,
paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
124
In addition, it should be recalled that Article 52(3) of the Charter is intended to ensure the
necessary consistency between the rights contained in the Charter and the corresponding rights
guaranteed in the ECHR, without adversely affecting the autonomy of EU law and that of the Court
of Justice of the European Union. Account must therefore be taken of the corresponding rights of
the ECHR for the purpose of interpreting the Charter, as the minimum threshold of protection (see,
to that effect, judgments of 12 February 2019, TC, C‑492/18 PPU, EU:C:2019:108, paragraph 57,
and of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary (Rights of usufruct over agricultural land), C‑235/17,
EU:C:2019:432, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
125
Article 5 of the ECHR, which enshrines the ‘right to liberty’ and the ‘right to security’, is intended,
according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, to ensure that individuals are
protected from arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 18 March
2008, Ladent v. Poland, CE:ECHR:2008:0318JUD001103603, §§ 45 and 46; 29 March 2010,
Medvedyev and Others v. France, CE:ECHR:2010:0329JUD000339403, §§ 76 and 77; and
13 December 2012, El-Masri v. ‘The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’,
CE:ECHR:2012:1213JUD003963009, § 239). However, since that provision applies to deprivations
of liberty by a public authority, Article 6 of the Charter cannot be interpreted as imposing an
obligation on public authorities to take specific measures to prevent and punish certain criminal
offences.
126
On the other hand, as regards, in particular, effective action to combat criminal offences committed
against, inter alia, minors and other vulnerable persons, mentioned by the Cour constitutionnelle
(Constitutional Court, Belgium), it should be pointed out that positive obligations of the public
authorities may result from Article 7 of the Charter, requiring them to adopt legal measures to
protect private and family life (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 June 2020, Commission v
Hungary (Transparency of associations), C‑78/18, EU:C:2020:476, paragraph 123 and the case-law
cited of the European Court of Human Rights). Such obligations may also arise from Article 7,
concerning the protection of an individual’s home and communications, and Articles 3 and 4, as
regards the protection of an individual’s physical and mental integrity and the prohibition of torture
and inhuman and degrading treatment.
127
It is against the backdrop of those different positive obligations that the Court must strike a balance
between the various interests and rights at issue.
128
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the positive obligations flowing from
Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, whose corresponding safeguards are set out in Articles 4 and 7 of the
Charter, require, in particular, the adoption of substantive and procedural provisions as well as
practical measures enabling effective action to combat crimes against the person through effective
investigation and prosecution, that obligation being all the more important when a child’s physical
and moral well-being is at risk. However, the measures to be taken by the competent authorities
must fully respect due process and the other safeguards limiting the scope of criminal investigation
powers, as well as other freedoms and rights. In particular, according to that court, a legal
framework should be established enabling a balance to be struck between the various interests and
rights to be protected (ECtHR, 28 October 1998, Osman v. United Kingdom,
CE:ECHR:1998:1028JUD002345294, §§ 115 and 116; 4 March 2004, M.C. v. Bulgaria,
CE:ECHR:2003:1204JUD003927298, § 151; 24 June 2004, Von Hannover v. Germany,
CE:ECHR:2004:0624JUD005932000, §§ 57 and 58; and 2 December 2008, K.U. v. Finland,
CE:ECHR:2008:1202JUD000287202, §§ 46, 48 and 49).
129
Concerning observance of the principle of proportionality, the first sentence of Article 15(1) of
2/15/2021, 4:58 PM