Restrictions in the exercise of human and citizen rights and fundamental freedoms in conditions of martial state through the prism of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights
Authors: Yavorskyi V. , Letnianchyn L. 
Published: February 2025

The article analyzes state interference in the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms under martial law. The peculiarity of such interference is considered through the prism of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
The need to maintain a balance between public and private interests is indicated. It is emphasized that a balanced ratio is an integral part of the rule of law. Some conclusions from the case of the European Court of Human Rights “Kryvenky v. Ukraine” and the Report of the Venice Commission “On the Rule of Law” are analyzed. It is noted that the general interests of society and a particular individual must be in a fair balance.
The opinion was expressed that ensuring the interests of society or the state may also involve restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms of a particular individual. The need for proportionality of such restrictions is emphasized. The rights that cannot be restricted for any reason are indicated.
Three main criteria are highlighted according to which a restriction is an unlawful interference with human rights. The criterion of “established by law” is analyzed. It was argued that the concept of “law” in this context should be understood in a broad sense. The requirements for legislation are presented. The “Case of Chahal v. The United Kingdom” and national legislation are analyzed for the presence of the above-mentioned criterion. It is determined that the grounds for the restriction are present, in particular, in the Decree of the President of Ukraine “On the introduction of martial law in Ukraine”. The need to adhere to the principle of the rule of law is emphasized using the example of “Case of Tsezar and others v. Ukraine”.
The criterion of “pursuit of a legitimate aim” is analyzed. An exhaustive list of legitimate aims is established, however, it is noted that such aims can be interpreted broadly. The conclusion is made that there is a legitimate aim, namely the need to ensure national security and territorial integrity.
The criterion of “necessity in a democratic society” is analyzed. The conclusions in the cases “Case of Dubská and Krejzová v. The Czech Republic”, “Case Of Vavřička And Others v. The Czech Republic” are updated. The possibility of restricting the rights and freedoms of an individual is emphasized only in the absence of alternatives and exclusively to the extent that is minimally sufficient to achieve the set legitimate goal using the example of the ECHR decision “Affaire Vedat Şorli v. Turkey”. It is indicated that in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine, sacrificing less important rights to ensure more important ones is appropriate and necessary in a democratic society.
The conclusions are drawn that in the conditions of martial law in Ukraine, restrictions on the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms are a legitimate interference through the prism of the ECHR. The state should apply restrictions only in extreme cases, and any abuse is not allowed.