Print
Download XMLProtocol bij het Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden, zoals herzien door Protocol nr. 11
Partijen met voorbehouden, verklaringen en bezwaren
| Partij | Voorbehoud / verklaring | Bezwaren |
|---|---|---|
| Andorra | Ja | Nee |
| Azerbeidzjan | Ja | Nee |
| Bulgarije | Ja | Nee |
| Duitsland | Ja | Nee |
| Estland | Ja | Nee |
| Frankrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Georgië | Ja | Nee |
| Ierland | Ja | Nee |
| Letland | Ja | Nee |
| Luxemburg | Ja | Nee |
| Malta | Ja | Nee |
| Moldavië | Ja | Nee |
| Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der | Ja | Nee |
| Noord-Macedonië | Ja | Nee |
| Oostenrijk | Ja | Nee |
| Roemenië | Ja | Nee |
| Russische Federatie | Ja | Nee |
| San Marino | Ja | Nee |
| Spanje | Ja | Nee |
| Turkije | Ja | Nee |
| Verenigd Koninkrijk | Ja | Nee |
Andorra
06-05-2008
Considering the historical reality of the principality of Andorra, of Catholic tradition,
with a Coprince being a bishop since the XIIIth century, the actual legislation on
education (Article 30, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of the principality of Andorra;
Article 10 of the Organic Law on education and Article 19 of the Law on the prioritization
of the Andorran instructive system) allows to give Catholic religion lessons in all
educational centres, on an optional basis, outside the scholastic timetable. Other
religions can offer their study in the educational centres, outside the scholastic
timetable, with the approval of the Government and the education representatives and
without implicating public expenditures.
Azerbeidzjan
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).
The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it interprets the second sentence of Article
2 of the Protocol in the sense that this provision does not impose on the State any
obligation to finance religious education.
Bulgarije
07-09-1992
The terms of the second provision of Article 1 of the Protocol shall not affect the
scope or content of Article 22, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the Republic of
Bulgaria, which states that : "No foreign physical person or foreign legal entity
shall acquire ownership over land, except through legal inheritance. Ownership thus
acquired shall be duly transferred" .
The second provision of Article 2 of the Protocol must not be interpreted as imposing
on the State additional financial commitments relating to educational establishments
with a specific philosophical or religious orientation other than the commitments
of the Bulgarian State provided for in the Constitution and in legislation in force
in the country.
Duitsland
13-02-1957
The Federal Republic of Germany adopts the opinion according to which the second sentence of Article 2 of the (First) Protocol entails no obligation on the part of the State to finance schools of a religious or philosophical nature, or to assist in financing such schools, since this question, as confirmed by the concurring declaration of the Legal Committee of the Consultative Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, lies outside the scope of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of its Protocol.
Estland
16-04-1996
The Estonian Rigikogu made a reservation according to which after restoring her independence,
Estonia started large-scale economic and social reforms, which have encompassed the
restoration or compensation to previous owners or their heirs property which was nationalised
or otherwise unlawfully expropriated during the period of Soviet annexation; the restructuring
of collectivised agriculture and privatisation of state owned property.
In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares
that the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol shall not apply to the laws
on property reform which regulate the restoration or compensation of property nationalised,
confiscated, requisitioned, collectivised or otherwise unlawfully expropriated during
the period of Soviet annexation; the restructuring of collectivised agriculture and
privatisation of state owned property. The reservation concerns the Principles of
the Property Reform Act (published in Riigi Teataja [State Gazette] 1991, 21, 257;
RT I 1994, 38, 617; 40, 653; 51, 859; 94, 1609), the Land Reform Act (RT 1991, 34,
426; RT I 1995,, 10, 113), the Agricultural Reform Act (RT 1992, 10, 143; 36, 474;
RT I 1994, 52, 880), the Privatisation Act (RT I 1993, 45, 639; 1994, 50, 846; 79,
1329; 83, 1448; 1995, 22, 327; 54, 881; 57, 979), the Dwelling Rooms Privatisation
Act (RT I 1993, 23, 411; 1995, 44, 671; 57, 979; 1996, 2, 28), the Act on Evaluation
and Compensation of Unlawfully Expropriated Property (RT I 1993, 30, 509; 1994, 8,
106; 51, 859; 54, 905; 1995, 29, 357), the Act on Evaluation of Collectivised Property
(RT I 1993, 7, 104) and their wording being in force at the moment of the Ratification
Act entered into force.
In addition to the reservation to Article 1 of the First Protocol, made in accordance
with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia hereby gives a brief summary
of the laws mentioned in the reservation.
The Principles of the Property Reform Act provides that the objective of property
reform is the restructuring of property relationships to secure proprietary integrity
and free enterprise, to remedy the injustices done by violations of the right to property
and to provide prerequisites for a switch to a market oriented economy. In the course
of property reform, property will be compensated for or returned to the former owners
or their legal heirs. Herewith other people's interests which are protected by law
must not be violated nor new injustices be caused to them.
In the course of property reform, property unlawfully expropriated during the period
of June 16, 1940 to June 1, 1981 by means of nationalisation, collectivisation or
expropriation through unlawful repression or other means violating the rights of the
owner, will be returned or compensated.
In the course of property reform, the form of ownership will be changed as follows:
1. some of the state-owned property will be municipalised without charge;
2. state-owned or municipally-owned property will be privatised free of charge or
for remuneration;
3. property which was transferred free of charge by the state (during the Soviet annexation)
to cooperatives, state-cooperatives and communal organisations, will be returned to
the Republic of Estonia.
The procedure of restoration and compensation of unlawfully expropriated property
is regulated by laws and other legal acts.
The Land Reform Act establishes that land reform is a part of property reform and
its objective is to restructure legal relationships based on state-owned land to relationships
based on private land, proceeding from the continuity of the rights of the former
owners and the interests of the present land-users as protected by law.
In the course of the land reform, land:
1. unlawfully expropriated will be compensated, substituted by or returned to the
former owners or their legal heirs;
2. will be given with or without charge into the possession of private-law persons,
public-law persons or municipal entities;
3. that is to remain in the state possession will be decided upon;
4. will be transferred for use by private or legal persons by contract or along with
the building title.
Land that is not returned, nor substituted, nor left in state possession, nor given
to municipal possession under the present law, will be privatised.
The Agricultural Reform Act provides that agricultural reform proceeds from the Principles
of the Property Reform Act. In the course of agricultural reform, collectivised property
will be returned or compensated for and the collective unit will be reorganised or
liquidated. Evaluation of the collectivised property is carried out in accordance
with the Act on Evaluation of Collectivised Property. In the course of agricultural
reform the transformation of the agricultural sector is principally aimed towards
farming and enterprise based on private ownership.
The Privatisation Act provides that the property of state-owned or municipally-owned
enterprises, institutions and organisations may be privatised under the conditions
and rules set out by law. The Privatisation Agency regulates privatisation of state
property and fulfilment of other tasks deriving from the property reform.
The Privatisation Act is not applied to the privatisation of dwelling rooms in the
possession of the state or municipalities, nor to non-dwelling rooms located in dwelling
houses, nor to the property of cooperatives referred to in the Agricultural Reform
Act.
The Dwelling Rooms Privatisation Act provides that natural persons and legal persons
will be given the opportunity to acquire the dwelling rooms they are renting, uninhabited
dwelling rooms, thus providing for better care and preservation of the dwelling houses.
The Act on Evaluation and Compensation of Unlawfully Expropriated Property defines
the foundations and rules, as well as the means and scope of compensation, for determining
the price of unlawfully expropriated property dealt with under the property reform.
The Act on Evaluation of Collectivised Property provides the procedure and grounds
for determining the price of property as required for the compensation of collectivised
property in accordance with Article 14 of the Principles of Property Reform Act which
deals with the return and compensation of collectivised property, and Article 9 of
the Agricultural Reform Act that deals with loans and other material obligations of
the collective economic unit.
Frankrijk
03-05-1974
In depositing this instrument of ratification, the Government of the Republic declares that the Protocol shall apply to the whole territory of the Republic, having due regard, where the overseas territories are concerned, to local requirements, as mentioned in Article 63 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Georgië
07-06-2002
Georgia declares, that due to the existing situation in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region,
Georgian authorities are unable to undertake commitments concerning the respect and
protection of the provisions of the Convention and its Additional Protocols on these
territories. Georgia therefore declines its responsibility for violations of the provisions
of the Protocol by the organs of self-proclaimed illegal forces on the territories
of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region until the possibility of realization of the full
jurisdiction of Georgia is restored over these territories.
The Parliament of Georgia declares that:
1. Article 1 of the Protocol shall not apply to persons who have or will obtain status
of "internally displaced persons" in accordance with "the Law of Georgia on Internally
Displaced Persons" until the elimination of circumstances motivating the granting
of this status (until the restoration of the territorial integrity of Georgia). In
accordance with the aforementioned law, Georgia assumes responsibility to ensure the
exercise of rights over property that exist on the place of permanent residence of
internally displaced persons after the reasons mentioned in Article 1, paragraph 1,
of this law have been eliminated.
2. Article 1 of the Protocol shall be applied to the operational sphere of "the Law
of Georgia on the Ownership of Agricultural Land" in accordance with the requirements
of Articles 4, 8, 15 and 19 of this Law.
3. Article 1 of the Protocol shall be applied within the limits of Articles 2 and
3 of the Law of Georgia on Transference into Private Property of the Non-Agricultural
Lands Being in Possession of Natural Persons and Legal Persons of Private Law".
4. Article 1 of the Protocol shall be applied within the limits of the "Law of Georgia
on Privatisation of the State Property".
5. With regard to the compensation of pecuniary assets placed on accounts of the former
Georgian public-commercial banks, Article 1 of the Protocol shall be applied within
the limits of the normative act adopted in pursuance of the Decree No. 258 of the
President of Georgia of 2 July 2001.
Georgia declares that it interprets Article 2 of the Protocol as not imposing on the
State additional financial commitments relating to special educational establishments
(with a specific philosophical or religious orientation) other than those provided
by the legislation of Georgia.
Ierland
25-02-1953
At the time of signing the (First) Protocol the Irish Delegate puts on record that, in the view of the Irish Government, Article 2 of the Protocol is not sufficiently explicit in ensuring to parents the right to provide education for their children in their homes or in schools of the parents' own choice, whether or not such schools are private schools or are schools recognised or established by the State.
Letland
27-06-1997
In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, the Republic of Latvia declares that the provisions
of Article 1 of the First Protocol shall not apply to the laws on property reform
which regulate the restoration or compensation to the former owners or their legal
heirs of property nationalised, confiscated, collectivised or otherwise unlawfully
expropriated during the period of Soviet annexation; and privatisation of collectivised
agricultural enterprises, collective fisheries and of State and local self-government
owned property.
The reservation concerns the Law On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Rural Regions
(published in Zinotajs [The Bulletin] 1990, No. 49; 1991, No. 41; 1992, No. 6/7; 1992,
No. 11/12; 1993, No. 18/19; Latvijas Vestnesis [The Latvian Herald] 1994, No. 137),
Law On Privatisation of Agricultural Enterprises and Collective Fisheries (Zinotajs
1991, No. 31; 1992, No. 40/41; 1993, No. 5/6; Latvijas Vestnesis 1995, No. 90; 1996,
No. 177), Law On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities (Zinotajs 1991, No.
49/50; Latvijas Vestnesis 1994, No. 47; 1994, No. 145; 1995, No. 169; 1997, No. 126/127),
Law On Land Privatisation in Rural Regions (Zinotajs 1992, No. 32; 1993, No. 18/19;
Latvijas Vestnesis 1993, No. 130; 1994, No. 148; 1995, No. 162; 1996, No. 111; 1996,
No. 225), Law On Privatisation of Property in Agroservice Enterprises (Zinotajs 1993,
No. 14), Law On Privatisation Certificates (Latvijas Vestnesis 1995, No. 52), Law
On the Privatisation of Objects of State and Municipal Property (Latvijas Vestnesis
1994, No. 27; 1994, No. 77; 1996, No. 192; 1997, No. 16/17/18/19/20/21), Law On Privatisation
of Co-operative Apartments (Zinotajs 1991, No. 51; Latvijas Vestnesis 1995, No. 135),
Law On the Privatisation of State and Local Self-Government Apartment Houses (Latvijas
Vestnesis 1995, No. 103; 1996, No. 149; 1996, No. 223), Law On Denationalisation of
Real Estate in the Republic of Latvia (1991, No. 46; Latvijas Vestnesis 1994, No.
42; 1994, No. 90; 1995, No. 137; 1996, No. 219/220), Law On the Return of Real Estate
to the Legitimate Owners (Zinotajs 1991, No. 46; Latvijas Vestnesis 1994, No. 42;
1996, No. 97) and their wording being in force at the moment the Law On Ratification
entered into force.
In addition to the reservation to Article 1 of the First Protocol, made in accordance
with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Latvia hereby gives a brief summary
of the laws concerned.
The goal of the Law On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Rural Regions is to allocate
the land for paying use to natural persons and legal persons and to renew to the Republic
of Latvia citizens, who desire so, the land ownership rights in the procedure stipulated
by law or to deliver the land into ownership without compensation or for pay.
The Law On Privatisation of Agricultural Enterprises and Collective Fisheries regulates
privatisation of agricultural enterprises and collective fisheries. The objective
of the Law is to decrease sequels of unlawful methods of collectivisation changing
the forms of property in agricultural enterprises and collective fisheries as well
as to promote the process of privatisation in agriculture and development of private
entrepreneurial activity.
The aim of the Law On Land Reform in the Republic of Latvia Cities, during the gradual
process of State property denationalisation, conversion, privatisation and the return
of unlawfully expropriated land, is to restructure the legal, social and economic
relations between city land owners and users in order to promote the respective city's
construction, land protection and its rational utilisation in accordance with the
interests of society.
The main objectives of the Law On Land Privatisation in Rural Regions are:
1. to create a basis and guarantees for agricultural development;
2. to renew land ownership rights to the former landowners who owned the land on July
21, 1940 or their heirs; and
3. to give the land into ownership of the Republic of Latvia citizens for compensation.
The Law On Privatisation of Property in Agroservice Enterprises regulates the change
of ownership rights on property under the use and disposal of agroservice enterprises.
The main objective of the Law is to promote the development of entrepreneurial activity
in this branch by property privatisation, and to create conditions for organisation
of the system for protection of the interests of agricultural producers on the basis
of co-operation and competition.
The Law establishes the rights of the State and local self-governments, agricultural
producers and employees of an enterprise, as well as of other natural persons and
legal persons, and the procedure by which the ownership rights on the property under
use and disposal of agroservice enterprise shall be obtained or specified.
The goal of the Law On Privatisation Certificates is to establish a legal basis for
most of Latvia's residents to participate in the process of privatisation of State
and local self-government owned property, using privatisation certificates as form
of payment.
Certificates are issued to Latvia's residents according to the years of residence
in Latvia. Additional certificates can be issued to former owners or their heirs,
as compensation for illegally nationalised real estate which cannot be returned; politically
repressed persons who are recognised as such, according to the Republic of Latvia
Law of May 13, 1992 "On the Determination of the Status of a Politically Repressed
Person", corresponding to time of imprisonment, deportation or time of settling.
The Law On the Privatisation of Objects of State and Municipal Property determines
the procedure for privatisation of objects of State and local self-government property,
as far as it is not regulated by other laws, as well as the establishment and operational
principles of the Latvian Privatisation Agency.
The Law On Privatisation of Co-operative Apartments establishes the legal basis for
the privatisation of the co-operative dwelling fund of house-building co-operatives
in the territory of the Republic of Latvia. Apartments in large dwelling houses owned
by house-building co-operatives shall be considered as the object of privatisation.
The Law On the Privatisation of State and Local Self-Governments Apartment Houses
establishes the procedure for privatising State and local self-government apartment
houses, and the goal is to develop the real estate market and stimulate the upkeep
of apartment houses, while protecting the interests of residents.
The Law On Denationalisation of Real Estate defines the real estate which can be denationalised,
fixes the terms and procedure of denationalisation, the form of compensation and social
guarantees of present tenants.
The Law On the Return of Real Estate to the Legitimate Owners guarantees that the
real estate which has been expropriated by the State in the 1940s-1980s without compensation
will be returned to the former owners or their legal heirs.
Luxemburg
03-09-1953
The Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, having regard to Article 64 of the Convention and desiring to avoid any uncertainty as regards the application of Article 1 of the Protocol in relation to the Luxembourg Law of 26 April 1951 concerning the liquidation of certain ex-enemy property, rights and interests subject to measures of sequestration, makes a reservation relating to the provisions of the above-mentioned Law of 26 April 1951.
Malta
23-01-1967
The Government of Malta, having regard to Article 64 of the Convention, declares that the principle affirmed in the second sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol is accepted by Malta only in so far as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training, and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, having regard to the fact that the population of Malta is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.
Moldavië
12-09-1997
The Republic of Moldova interprets the provisions set out in the second sentence of Article 2 of the first Additional Protocol as precluding additional financial obligations for the State in respect of philosophically or religiously oriented schools, other than those provided for in domestic legislation.
Nederlanden, het Koninkrijk der
31-08-1954
In the opinion of the Netherlands Government, the State should not only respect the
rights of parents in the matter of education but, if need be, ensure the possibility
of exercising those rights by appropriate financial measures.
03-01-1986
The island of Aruba, which is at present still part of the Netherlands Antilles, will
obtain internal autonomy as a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands as of
1 January 1986. Consequently the Kingdom will from then on no longer consist of two
countries, namely the Netherlands (the Kingdom in Europe) and the Netherlands Antilles
(situated in the Caribbean region), but will consist of three countries, namely the
said two countries and the country Aruba.
As the changes being made on 1 January 1986 concern a shift only in the internal constitutional
relations within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and as the Kingdom as such will remain
the subject under international law with which treaties are concluded, the said changes
will have no consequences in international law regarding to treaties concluded by
the Kingdom which already apply to the Netherlands Antilles, including Aruba. These
treaties will remain in force for Aruba in its new capacity of country within the
Kingdom. Therefore these treaties will as of 1 January 1986, as concerns the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, apply to the Netherlands Antilles (without Aruba) and Aruba.
Consequently the treaties referred to in the annex, to which the Kingdom of the Netherlands
is a Party and which apply to the Netherlands Antilles, will as of 1 January 1986
as concerns the Kingdom of the Netherlands apply to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
List of Conventions referred to by the Declaration
......
9 Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(1952).
Noord-Macedonië
10-04-1997
In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, the Republic of Macedonia makes the following reservation
with regard to the right guaranteed by Article 2 of the Protocol to the abovementioned
Convention:
Pursuant to Article 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, the right
of parents to ensure education and teaching in conformity with their own religious
and philosophical convictions cannot be realised through primary private education,
in the Republic of Macedonia.
Article 45 of the Constitution reads as follows:
"Citizens have a right to establish private schools at all levels of education, with
the exception of primary education, under conditions determined by law".
Oostenrijk
03-09-1958
... being desirous of avoiding any uncertainty concerning the application of Article
1 of the Protocol in connection with the State Treaty of 15 May 1955 for the Restoration
of an Independent and Democratic Austria, (the Federal President) declares the Protocol
ratified with the reservations that there shall be no interference with the provisions
of Part IV "Claims arising out of the War" and Part V "Property, Rights and Interests"
of the above-mentioned State Treaty.
Roemenië
20-06-1994
Romania interprets Article 2 of the first Protocol to the Convention as not imposing any supplementary financial burdens connected with private educational institutions other than those established by domestic legislation.
Russische Federatie
25-03-2022
Depositary notification.
The Russian Federation shall cease to be a Party to Treaty ETS No. 9 on 16 September
2022.
San Marino
22-03-1989
The Government of the Republic of San Marino declares that having regard to the provisions of law in force which govern the use of goods in conformity with the general interest, the principle set forth in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature, in Paris, on 20 March 1952, has no bearing on the regulations in force concerning the real estate of foreign citizens.
Spanje
27-11-1990
In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the application
of Article 1 of the Protocol, Spain expresses a Reservation in the light of Article
33 of the Spanish Constitution, which stipulates the following:
1. The right to private property and to inheritance is recognised.
2. The social function of these rights shall determine their scope, as provided for
by law.
3. No person shall be deprived of their property or their rights except for a cause
recognised as being in the public interest or in the interest of society and in exchange
for fitting compensation as provided for by law.
Turkije
18-05-1954
Having seen and examined the Convention and the Protocol (First), we have approved
the same with the reservation set out in respect of Article 2 of the Protocol by reason
of the provisions of Law No. 6366 voted by the National Grand Assembly of Turkey dated
10 March 1954.
Article 3 of the said Law No. 6366 reads:
Article 2 of the Protocol shall not affect the provisions of Law No. 430 of 3 March
1924 relating to the unification of education.
Verenigd Koninkrijk
20-03-1952
At the time of signing the present (First) Protocol, I declare that, in view of certain
provisions of the Education Acts in the United Kingdom, the principle affirmed in
the second sentence of Article 2 is accepted by the United Kingdom only so far as
it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training, and the
avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.
25-02-1988
In accordance with Article 4 of the said Protocol I hereby declare, on behalf of the
Government of the United Kingdom, that the Protocol shall apply to:
The Bailiwick of Guernsey
The Bailiwick of Jersey
Anguilla
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
St. Helena, Ascencion and Tristan da Cunha
Turks and Caicos Islands,
being territories for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom
are responsible
Concerning Guernsey and Gibraltar : in view of certain provisions of the Education
(Guernsey) Laws and of the Education Ordinance of Gibraltar, the principle affirmed
in the second sentence of Article 2 is accepted by the United Kingdom only so far
as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training, and
the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure in Guernsey and Gibraltar
Concerning th following territories for whose international relations the Government
of the United Kingdom are responsible : the principle affirmed in the second sentence
of Article 2 is accepted by the United Kingdom only insofar as it does not affect
the application of the following legal provisions:
i. the common law of Anguilla which permits the imposition by teachers of moderate
and reasonable corporal punishment;
ii. section 26 of the Education Act 1977 of the British Virgin Islands (which permits
the administration of corporal punishment to a pupil only where no other punishment
is considered suitable or effective and only by the principal or any teacher appointed
by the principal for that purpose);
iii. section 30 of the Education Law 1983 of the Cayman Islands (which permits the
administration of corporal punishment to a pupil only where no other punishment is
considered suitable or effective and only by the principal or any teacher appointed
in writing by him for that purpose);
iv. the common law of Montserrat which permits the imposition by teachers of moderate
and reasonable corporal punishment;
v. the law of St. Helena, which permits the administration by teachers of reasonable
corporal punishment; and section 6 of the Children and Young Persons Ordinance 1965
of St. Helena (which states that the right of a teacher to administer such punishment
is not affected by the provisions of that section which relate to the offence of cruelty
to children);
vi. the law of Ascencion and Tristan da Cunha, which permits the administration by
teachers of reasonable corporal punishment; and section 6 of the Children and Young
Persons Ordinance 1965 of St. Helena (which states that the right of a teacher to
administer such punishment is not affected by the provisions of that section which
relate to the offence of cruelty to children);
vii. the common law of the Turks and Caicos Islands which permits the administration
by teachers of reasonable corporal punishment; and section 5 of the Juveniles Ordinance
(Chapter 28) of the Turks and Caicos Islands (which states that the right of a teacher
to administer such punishment is not affected by the provisions of that section which
relate to the offence of cruelty to juveniles).
10-10-2001
In view of certain provisions of Education Act 2001 (of Tynwald) or, until the comint
into operation of that Act, the Isle of Man Education Act 1949, the principle affirmed
in the second sentence of Article 2 is accepted by the United Kingdom only so far
as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training, and
the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure in the Isle of Man.
In accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, the Government of the United Kingdom
declares that the Protocol shall apply to the Isle of Man being a territory for whose
international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.
14-08-2009
In accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol, the Government of the United Kingdom
declares that the application of Article 3 of the said Protocol is withdrawn in respect
of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
19-12-2012
On 15 October 2012, the new constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands came into
force. Elections were held on 9 November 2012: there was an 84% turnout of voters.
International election observers concluded that the process was transparent, accountable
and that the results reflected the will of the people.
In light of these welcome and significant developments, in accordance with Article
4 of Protocol No. 1, the United Kingdom now ends its withdrawal of the application
of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Turks and Caicos Islands, such as that the Article
3 of the Protocol No. 1 will once again apply there.