CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020) STATE RESPONSE TO COVID-19 LIMITING HUMAN RIGHTS … no longer applies, the restriction should be lifted without delay. In addition, oversight and accountability mechanisms should be in place to allow individuals who are impacted to challenge the appropriateness of those restrictions.” 24 Similar criteria apply to the practice of ECHR. As mentioned above, there are two possible ways to react to emergency situation which we face now: firstly, the states may rely on the exception of public health foreseen in articles of ECHR listing the rights in question (freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, right to education etc.), and, secondly, declare national emergency and inform the Council of Europe about the derogation according to Article 15. Those two ways of derogation will be the centre of the following analysis. We will analyse the ECtHR practice and make a comparison of these two ways of dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. First way is to rely on the Article 15 of ECHR allowing for derogations in situations threatening life of the nation. Some of the states reacting to COVD-19 have declared national emergencies. In Europe, Council of Europe was notified of application of Article 15 of ECHR which is applicable in case of national emergency, by the following states: Albania, Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino and Serbia. 25 Other states have also adopted restrictive measures, but instead basing them on the laws permitting action in cases of health emergency. It is interesting to note that the most affected states in Europe, among them Russia, Italy, Spain, France have not made notifications according to Article 15 and have not declared national emergencies. Albania notes in its notification, that “[t]he measures adopted by the Government, among others include, gradual restriction of air, land and sea traffic, suspension of education process, establishment of quarantine procedures and self-isolation, restriction of assembly, manifestation and gathering, restriction on the right of property, special regulation on public service delivery and administrative proceedings.” 26 Similarly, Latvia indicates: “The application of these measures gives reasons for the necessity to derogate from certain obligations of Latvia under Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Article 2 of Protocol No.4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” 27 North Macedonia states, similarly to Latvia, that “The application of these measures may influence the exercise of certain rights and freedoms under the Convention and in some instances give reason for the necessity to derogate from certain obligations of the Republic of North Macedonia under Article 8 and Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The measures adopted by the 24 World Health Organisation (n 4). 25 Council of Europe ‘Notifications under Article 15 of the Convention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic’ (2020) accessed 31 May 2020. 26 Note verbale from Albania (n 8). 27 Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Latvia to the Council of Europe (15 March 2020) concerning Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms accessed 28 May 2020.

149