Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Parties with reservations, declarations and objections

Party	Reservations / Declarations	Objections
Austria	Yes	No
Azerbaijan	Yes	No
Belgium	Yes	No
Denmark	Yes	No
France	Yes	No
Germany	Yes	No
Italy	Yes	No
Liechtenstein	Yes	No
Luxembourg	Yes	No
Monaco	Yes	No
Netherlands, the Kingdom of the	Yes	No
Portugal	Yes	No
Russian Federation	Yes	No
San Marino	Yes	No
Spain	Yes	No
Sweden	Yes	No
Switzerland	Yes	No

Austria

14-05-1986

The Republic of Austria declares:
1. Higher Tribunals in the sense of Article 2, paragraph 1, include the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court.
2. Articles 3 and 4 exclusively relate to criminal proceedings in the sense of the Austrian code of criminal procedure.

Azerbaijan

15-04-2002

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Protocol in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation (the schematic map of the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan is enclosed).

Belgium

11-05-2005

Belgium understands the words "resident" and "lawfully" mentioned in Article 1 of this Protocol in the sense that is given to them in paragraph 9 of its Explanatory Report.

Denmark

18-08-1888

The Government of Denmark declares that Article 2, paragraph 1 does not bar the use of rules of the Administration of Justice Act ("Lov om rettens pleje") according to which the possibility of review by a higher court - in cases subject to prosecution by the lower instance of the prosecution ("politisager") - is denied
a. when the prosecuted, having been duly notified, fails to appear in court;
b. when the court has repealed the punishment ; or
c. in cases where only sentences of fines or confiscation of objects below the amount or value established by law are imposed.

02-09-1994

With reference to Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms adopted by the Council of Europe on 22 November 1984 and ratified by Denmark on 18 August 1988, I have the honour to state that Denmark withdraws its territorial reservation made upon ratification of the said Protocol according to which the Protocol should not apply to the Faroe Islands.

The Danish reservation made in respect of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Protocol shall also apply to the Faroe Islands.
The Danish declarations made in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Protocol by which Denmark recognizes the right of individual petition and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Articles 1 to 5 of the Protocol shall also apply to the Faroe Islands.

France

22-11-1984

17-02-1986

The Government of the French Republic declares that, in accordance with the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, the review by a higher court may be limited to a control of the application of the law, such as an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Government of the French Republic declares that only those offences which under French law fall within the jurisdiction of the French criminal courts may be regarded as offences within the meaning of Articles 2 to 4 of this Protocol.
The Government of the French Republic declares that Article 5 may not impede the application of the rules of the French legal system concerning the transmission of the patronymic name.
Article 5 may not impede the application of provisions of local law in the territorial collectivity of Mayotte and the territories of New Caledonia and of the Wallis and Futuna Archipelago.
Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms shall apply to the whole territory of the Republic, due regard being had where the overseas territories and the territorial collectivity of Mayotte are concerned, to the local requirements referred to in Article 63 [Article 56 since the entry into force of Protocol No. 11] of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Germany

19-03-1985

1. By "criminal offence" and "offence" in Articles 2 to 4 of the present Protocol, the Federal Republic of Germany understands only such acts as are criminal offences under its law.
2. The Federal Republic of Germany applies Article 2.1 to convictions or sentences in the first instance only, it being possible to restrict review to errors in law and to hold such reviews in camera; in addition, it understands that the application of Article 2.1 is not dependent on the written judgement of the previous instance being translated into a language other than the language used in court.
3. The Federal Republic of Germany understands the words "according to the law or the practice of the State concerned" to mean that Article 3 refers only to the retrial provided for in sections 359 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (cf. Strafprozessordnung).

Italy

07-11-1991

The Italian Republic declares that Articles 2 to 4 of the Protocol apply only to offences, procedures and decisions qualified as criminal by Italian law.

Liechtenstein

08-02-2005

The Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein declares that only those offences which, under Liechtenstein law, fall within the jurisdiction of the Liechtenstein criminal courts may be regarded as offences within the meaning of Article 2 of this Protocol.

Luxembourg

19-04-1989

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg declares that Article 5 of the Protocol must not prevent the application of the rules of the Luxembourg legal system concerning transmission of the patronymic name.

Monaco

30-11-2005

The Princippalitry of Monaco declares that the superior jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1, of Protocol No.7 includes the Court of Review and the Supreme Court.

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

22-11-1984

The Netherlands Government interprets paragraph 1 of Article 2 thus that the right conferred to everyone convicted of a criminal offence to have conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal relates only to convictions or sentences given in the first instance by tribunals which, according to Netherlands law, are in charge of jurisdiction in criminal matters.

Portugal

20-12-2004

By "criminal offences" and "offence" in Articles 2 and 4 of the present Protocol, Portugal understands only those acts which constitute a criminal offence under its internal law.

Russian Federation

25-03-2022

Depositary communication.
The Russian Federation shall cease to be a Party to Treaty ETS No. 117 on 16 September 2022.

San Marino

22-03-1989

With regard to the provisions of Article 3 on the compensation of the victim of a miscarriage of justice, the Government of San Marino declares that although the principle is applied in practice, it is not enshrined in any legislative provision. Therefore the Government of the Republic undertakes to embody the principle and its regulation into a relevant legislative provision to be adopted within two years from today.

Spain

16-09-2009

If this Protocol were to be extended by the United Kingdom to Gibraltar, Spain would like to make the following declaration:
1. Gibraltar is a non-autonomous territory whose international relations come under the responsibility of the United Kingdom and which is subject to a decolonisation process in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
2. The authorities of Gibraltar have a local character and exercise exclusively internal competences which have their origin and their foundation in a distribution and attribution of competences performed by the United Kingdom in compliance with its internal legislation, in its capacity as sovereign State on which the mentioned non-autonomous territory depends.
3. As a result, the eventual participation of the Gibraltarian authorities in the application of this Protocol will be understood as carried out exclusively as part of the internal competences of Gibraltar and cannot be considered to modify in any way what was established in the two previous paragraphs.

Sweden

08-11-1985

The Government of Sweden declares that an alien who is entitled to appeal against an expulsion order may, pursuant to Section 70 of the Swedish Aliens Act (1980:376), make a statement (termed a declaration of acceptance) in which he renounces his right of appeal against the decision. A declaration of acceptance may not be revoked. If the alien has appealed against the order before making a declaration of acceptance, his appeal shall be deemed withdrawn by reason of the declaration.

Switzerland

24-02-1988

When expulsion takes place in pursuance of a decision of the Federal Council taken in accordance with Article 70 of the Constitution on the grounds of a threat to the internal or external security of Switzerland, the person concerned does not enjoy the rights listed in paragraph 1 even after the execution of the expulsion.
Following the entry into force of the revised provisions of the Swiss Civil Code of 5 October 1984, the provisions of Article 5 of the Additional Protocol No. 7 shall apply subject, on the one hand, to the provisions of Federal law concerning the family name (Article 160 CC and 8a final section, CC) and, on the other hand, to the provisions concerning the acquisition of the right of citizenship (Articles 161, 134, paragraph 1, 149, paragraph 1, CC and 8b final section, CC). Furthermore, the present reservation also concerns certain provisions of transitional law on marriage settlement (Articles 9, 9a, 9c, 9d, 9e, 10 and 10a final section, CC).

Go to top