Why was Article 13 of the Convention left out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and with what results? How could the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights change after the entry into force of Article 6 (2 and 3) of the Lisbon Treaty?
Read Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty 2009 together with the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Then answer the following questions:
Why was Article 13 of the Convention left out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and with what results? How could the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights change after the entry into force of Article 6 (2 and 3) of the Lisbon Treaty?
Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 promises the right to an effective remedy, stating “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” This article was deliberately left out of United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998, which integrated the ECHR into English law. For the years between 1951 and 1998, English courts were influenced by the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 yet it was not enforced. “The House of Lords stated that they would presume that Parliament did not intent to legislate contrary to the ECHR.” This leads us to assume that decisions taken by the House of Lords would most closely correspond with the rules set out in the ECHR, but that this compliance is not legally binding.