While the Court generally accords a wide margin of appreciation to national authorities in determining the existence of an emergency, it maintains supervisory oversight to ensure compliance with Convention standards.
[3][7] While states hold primary responsibility for determining the existence of a public emergency and the necessary derogations from human rights, the Court has the authority to assess if these measures are strictly required and consistent with international law obligations.
This principle is underscored in cases such as Ireland v. the United Kingdom (1978) and Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (2018), where the Court clarified the margin of appreciation granted to states while also ensuring the protection of democratic values.
Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC] (2014) demonstrated the ECtHR's flexibility in interpreting Convention provisions in alignment with principles of international humanitarian law, even in the absence of formal derogations.
[9][8] On 4 April 2024, as part of its regular communication with the Council of Europe regarding this matter, Ukraine significantly reduced the derogation and notified the Secretary General that it will no longer cover Articles 4.3 (related to forced or compulsory labor), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 16 (restrictions on political activity of aliens) of the ECHR.
[10] The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant but uneven invocation of Article 15, with ten new derogations: Latvia, Romania, Armenia, the Republic of Moldova, Estonia, Georgia, Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, and San Marino.
[10] The following cases are relevant to Article 15 ECHR:[10] The Court's permissive approach to emergencies has raised criticism in academic scholarship, arguing that it should give more scrutiny to the validity of derogations in order to prevent their use as an escape clause for human rights.