Emergenza e CEDU. Una ricerca sull'articolo 15 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo

This thesis provides a thorough analysis of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, examining the practices of Council of Europe member states and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights derived from this article. First, it compares Article 15 of the ECHR with theoretical models of states of emergency inherited from the Western legal tradition. It then traces the historical origins of the provision and its initial practical application. The research then focuses on the most recent uses of the ECHR derogation clause, particularly in relation to emergency events of the last decade, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. The research concludes that the derogation clause in the Convention has gradually changed in meaning through the Court's interpretation. The Court now favours other instruments that are better suited to addressing emergency circumstances, thus implicitly rejecting the normality/emergency dualism inherent in the Article 15 model. Nevertheless, the research reveals that several Council of Europe states continue to rely heavily on the derogation. This creates a conflict between the practices of the states and the Court's interpretation, and the position of Article 15 within the Convention is now uncertain and in need of redefinition — a necessity given the numerous emergencies of our time.