Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations ICCPR, Article 22 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right. ECHR, Article 11 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his [her] interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. Although in earlier decades the European Court of Human Rights tended to give states a wide margin of appreciation in cases involving restrictions on human rights for reasons of national security, this has progressively narrowed in recent years where the rights of armed forces personnel are concerned.142 If a state is unable to show that a restriction has a legal basis, it is unable to take advantage of these restrictions. The necessity and proportionality test employed by the Convention system requires consideration of the nature and extent to which a restriction is justified by a legitimate objective. As indicated in Box 5.1, restrictions on the right to freedom of association for service personnel are permitted under Article 11(2) of the ECHR. However, the Court has interpreted Article 11(2) as only allowing restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association for service personnel. Thus, Article 11(2) cannot be used to entirely remove this right.143 142 See: European Court of Human Rights, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece (Application no. 12945/87, judgment of 16 December 1992); Grigoriades v. Greece, op. cit., note 42; Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs [VDSO] and Gubi v. Austria (Application no. 15153/89, judgment of 19 December 1994); Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (Application nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, judgment of 27 September 1999); Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, (Application nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, judgment of 27 September 1999); and Konstantin Markin v. Russia, op. cit., note 47. See also: Council of Europe Research Division, National Security and European Case-Law (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Research Division, 2013). 143 See: European Court of Human Rights, Matelly v. France, op. cit., note 2, paras. 57-58; and ADEFDROMIL v. France (Application no. 32191/09, judgment of 2 October 2014), paras. 43-44. In both cases, the Court noted that “the restrictions imposed on the three groups mentioned in Article 11 [including members of the Armed Forces] are to be construed strictly and should, therefore, be confined to the “exercise” of the rights in question”. 79