Article 13 – Freedom of Movement

Berlin Wall seen from West Berlin in 1986 (photo: Thierry Noir on Wikimedia)

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

What does this right mean?

The right to freedom of movement means that people may travel within a state, without restrictions. Besides this, it guarantees that people may leave their countries and then return there.

To travel is to live.

Hans Christian Andersen (writer)

What is the history of this right?

In 1948, the Soviet Union was fiercely against the adoption of the right to freedom of movement. Back then, Russia did not allow for freedom to travel between countries. In the vote on the right to freedom of movement in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Soviet Union did not vote against it but excused itself from voting.

In Germany, the right to travel freely was under more and more pressure too. In 1946, the armed border police started to guard the border between East and West Germany. Then in 1952, the first fences were placed around the border. In 1961, the construction of the wall in Berlin dividing East and West Germany started. Almost nobody could cross the border anymore. People who still tried to flee risked their lives. In 1989, the wall came down and people were allowed to travel freely between East and West Germany again.

Where and how is this right documented?

The right to travel freely could very well be one of the most important rights of EU citizens to be included in European Union law. The right to freedom of movement is documented in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Schengen Agreement matters to this too; in this treaty, 26 European countries currently have agreed with each other that border inspections at their borders are no longer needed. Suppose you travel from the Netherlands to France, your passport is no longer checked (in principle).

In the Constitution of the Netherlands, Article 2 Subsection 4 states that everyone has the right to leave his or her country. On top of that, subjects of the Netherlands have the right to a passport once they apply for one. The state of the Netherlands is required by law to ensure that its citizens can receive passports to freely travel with.

The Constitution refers to Articles 12 and 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Besides this, Article 15 Subsection 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has arranged on a global level that men and women are entitled to equal rights regarding freedom of movement.

How topical is this human right?

During the COVID pandemic between 2019-2021, the right to move freely was restricted. In a world where borders are fading and countries are drawn closer and closer together, that was a new perception. Travelling abroad was impossible in some cases. America closed the borders for approximately 20 months and New Zealand even for 26 months. Within Europe as well, travelling was close to impossible; Italy is an example of a country that was locked down for a long time. In France, people were only allowed to leave their houses if they carried notes specifying good reasons to go outside.

It did not come to that in the Netherlands. But travelling within the Netherlands became harder too; everyone was requested to stay at home and there were fewer public transport rides as well. One example of a restriction of freedom of movement during the COVID period was the setting of a curfew. Such a far-reaching restriction has to be expressly documented in the law and also has to serve a justified cause. During the COVID pandemic, the government tried to protect public health by setting the curfew. There were various lawsuits on the question whether or not this restriction was clearly included in the law. The judge's ruling was that there was a lawful basis.