ABSTRACT
In the last chapter, I examined the exercise of balancing by the ECtHR in respect of Articles 8 to 11 and Article 3 Protocol 1. At this stage of the review, the ECtHR addresses the reasons provided by the parties and authoritatively settles the dispute. I concluded that despite the prima facie opaqueness of the interpretation stage, both the balancing stage and, more specifically, the third step of “democratic society” play a crucial role in striking the balance. I further argued that there is a salient practical reason – a set of powerful reasons by which state and individual actions are judged – that governs the Court’s balancing of those Articles. Three instances of this practical reason were found. First, the ECtHR identifies the right-holders whose contribution to the realization of “democratic society” is particularly central. Their prominence leads the Court to review their claim(s) with particular scrutiny and rigour. Conversely, it identifies right-holders that do not play such a crucial role and do not qualify for such treatment. On this point, I concluded that there is a salient interdependence, in the Court’s reasoning, between Article 3 Protocol 1 (free elections), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) in the reasons that justifies the nature and scope of the duties correlative to those rights (including positive duties). In a nutshell, this interdependence is governed by the search for an informed debate on issues of public interest and its representation in the elected parliament. In those instances, the ECtHR is not only protecting individuals from state interference – the classical requirement of state neutrality. It is openly promoting a conception of “democracy” and “democratic society”.
