Following the events of the Second World War and in response to the expansion of the Soviet bloc, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1950 to define human rights in the European context.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was established in 1959 to rule on petitions that convention rights have been infringed.The rights within the convention include the right to life (art 2), the prohibition of torture (art 3) and slavery and forced labour (art 4), the right to liberty of person (art 5), the right to a fair trial (art 6), freedom from punishment outside the law (art 7), and the right of respect for private and family life, home and confidentiality of correspondence (art 8).

Other articles deal with freedom of thought, expression and religion, freedom of assembly, the right to marry and the prohibition of di scrimination.

The first protocol deals with the protection of property, the right to education and the right to free elections, and the sixth protocol deals with the abolition of the death penalty other than in wartime.

Since 1966, individual citizens of the UK have been entitled to petition the court.Strasbourg jurisprudenceSome examples will give the flavour of the approaches adopted by the court.

In Osman v UK (28 October 1998), it was held that the striking-out of an action for negligence against the police was an infringement of art 6.

In Saunders v UK (1997), the use at trial of transcripts of interviews by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors was also held to be an infringement of art 6.

In H v France (1989), the refusal of a court to order an expert's report at the request of a party was held to be capable of infringing art 6.

In Soderback v Sweden (28 October 1998), the making of an adoption order was held not to be an infringement of the rights of the natural father under art 8.The Human Rights ActThe essence of the provisions of the Human Rights 1998 Act is that UK citizens will be able to enforce their rights under the convention in domestic courts.

The main specific provisions are:-- In determining an issue relating to convention rights, a court must take into account any relevant Strasbourg decisions or opinions (s.2).-- Primary and subordinate UK legislation must be interpreted in a way compatible with convention rights (s.30).-- The court has power to declare provisions of both primary and subordinate legislation to be incompatible with convention rights, although the making of a declaration will not affect the validity of the legislation (s.4).

The Crown is entitled to be given notice prior to the making of a declaration and a minister of the Crown or his nominee is entitled to be joined as a party to the proceedings (s.5).

Amendments to legislation can be made by ministerial order (s.10).-- A public authority, which includes a court or tribunal, is prohibited from acting in a way which is incompatible with a convention right (s.6).-- An actual or potential victim of an infringement of a convention right can bring proceedings against the authority under the Act or rely on the right concerned in other legal proceedings (s.7).

However, in relation to an incompatible judicial act the form of proceedings is limited at present to an appeal or judicial review (s.9).-- A court may grant any relief or remedy which it considers just and appropriate but there are limitations on the power to award damages (s.8 and s.9(3)).Prior to implementationIn a growing number of cases, convention issues are being argued prior to implementation.

In Dawson v Wearmouth 1999 1 FLR 1167, the House of Lords held that the change of a child's surname was not an infringement of the father's rights under art 8 since the issue was the welfare of the child and not the rights of the father.

Similarly, in Re P(Minor)(Residence Order:Child's Welfare), The Times, 11 May 1999, the Court of Appeal held that orders under s.91(14) of the Children Act 1989 do not infringe art 6(1) since they only impose a partial restriction on the right to a hearing.

The high point in anticipation of the implementation date so far has been R v DPP Exp Kebilene & Ors, The Times, 31 March 1999, where the Queen's Bench Divisional Court took into account in quashing a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not only an obvious conflict between an English statute and the presumption of innocence under article 6(2), but also the cost to the pub lic purse of a probably successful petition to Strasbourg.After implementationThe broadly drawn terms of the articles, and in particular articles 6 and 8, will provide litigants -- in particular defendants in criminal and civil proceedings and respondents in family proceedings -- with a whole new range of lines of argument.

Public authorities will be well advised to make provisions in their budgets for the cost of resisting proceedings under s.7(1).

The point which arose in RE P may well be re-argued, since art 6 does not exempt partial restrictions on the right to a fair hearing.

The rule in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1989 AC 53 has already been overturned by Osman and other rules based on public policy such as the restriction on re-litigation in Henderson v Henderson 1843 3 Hare 100 may not survive for much longer.Be ready for a sharp up-turn in litigation in 12 months' time.