Article 4 also imposes a positive obligation on states to actively ensure that there is no violation of the prohibition on slavery and forced labour.
The ECtHR confirmed in Siliadin v France[1] that article 4 imposes a positive obligation on states to adopt criminal law provisions in relation to the prohibition.
[4] The Commission of Human Rights stated in Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium[5] that servitude involves an obligation that is placed on an individual to provide work as well as a violation of freedom.
The ECtHR confirmed that there must be physical or mental constraint as well as involuntariness, injustice, oppression or avoidable hardship in order to constitute forced labour.
[12] Iverson v Norway held that the obligation on the individual to work must be excessive and disproportionate in order for the service to constitute forced labour.
Compulsory demands placed upon individuals in the case of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community will not constitute a violation of Article 4(2), so long as they are proportionate.
In Adami v Malta,[24] the complainant argued that it was a violation of Article 4(2) to require him to participate in jury service as he had been called upon three times during the period of 1971 to 1997.
The ECtHR considered that jury service was a normal civic obligation and therefore did not constitute forced labour or a violation of Article 4.
[26] Within this case, the ECtHR set out the nature and the scope of the positive obligation placed upon states under Article 4 in relation to human trafficking.
[27] Modern slavery is often associated with trafficking victims from abroad who can be forced into circumstances such as manual labour or sex work.
disregarded any ambiguity that was created following Rantsev by clarifying that human trafficking and forced prostitution fell within the scope of Article 4.