Lawful resctriction of the right to freedom of movement: international legal standards and practice of the European court of human rights

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of currentissues of restriction of the right to freedom of movement. The right to freedom of movement is one of the fundamental human rights in a democratic society and, accordingly, an integral part of the international human rights protection mechanism. At the same time, the right to freedom of movement is not absolute and is accompanied by certain restrictions necessary to ensure the realization of the rights, freedoms and interests of other people, the interests of the state and society. The author analyzed the provisions of international legal acts that enshrine the right to freedom of movement, in particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the American Convention on Human Rights (1969), the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1981), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) and Protocol No. 4 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The guarantees provided for in the above-mentioned acts and permissible cases of restriction of the right to freedom of movement were analyzed, as well as the criteria for compliance with which such a restriction would be considered legitimate were identified: legality; existence of a goal; necessity. The author has researched the approaches of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights to the understanding and interpretation of the mentioned criteria. Based on the analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on issues of verification of the legality of restrictions on the right to freedom of movement, it is substantiated that interference with the right to freedom of movement will be admissible if it is carried out only on the basis of the law, necessary in a democratic society with a legitimate aim (to protect state security , public order, health or morality of the population or the rights and freedoms of other persons, etc.), the interpretation of each of these requirements by the European Court of Human Rights is given, conclusions are drawn regarding the need to take them into account in national law- making and law-enforcement practice.