The applicant challenged restrictions on salmon fishing imposed by the respondent. At first instance they were held to be irrational, and the Agency appealed. Held: The Regulations were not irrational and that element of the appeal succeeded, but they did amount to an interference with the claimant’s A1P1 rights, and should not have been imposed … Continue reading Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Another: CA 17 Jun 2016
‘This appeal concerns the competing rights of (1) the National Crime Agency (‘the NCA’) to obtain a civil recovery order (‘a CRO’) under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘POCA’) in respect of property derived from unlawful conduct and (2) a wholly innocent former wife of the criminal, who would be left … Continue reading Sanam v National Crime Agency: CA 2 Dec 2015
Execution of the judgment  ECHR 2220, 27824/95 Bailii European Convention on Human Rights A1P1 Human Rights Citing: Judgment – Posti and Rahko v Finland ECHR 24-Sep-2002 Hudoc Two fishermen who operated under leases granted by the Finnish state complained that restrictions imposed by the government to safeguard fish stocks had failed to strike a … Continue reading Posti and Rahko v Finland: ECHR 3 Dec 2009
The Court considered the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights of licensing conditions imposed by the Environment Agency restricting certain forms of salmon-fishing in the Severn Estuary. The claimant operated a licensed putcher rank salmon fishing business. Held: The Agency’s appeal failed. The judge’s reasoning was correct. He had not find it necessary … Continue reading Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency: SC 14 Feb 2018
Grand Chamber. The court considered the need for establishing a fair balance in cases under A1P1: ‘Not only must an interference with the right of property pursue, on the facts as well as in principle, a ‘legitimate aim’ in the ‘general interest’, but there must also be a reasonable relation of proportionality between the means … Continue reading Hutten-Czapska v Poland: ECHR 19 Jun 2006
Restrictions had been imposed on the commercial exploitation of a peat bog, regarded as geologically and biologically unique. Held: The claim was inadmissible. The effect on the claimants was not unduly severe, having regard to the findings that they had not invested in production facilities for the purpose of exercising their extraction rights at the … Continue reading Pindstrup Mosebrug A/S v Denmark: ECHR 3 Jun 2008
Hudoc Two fishermen who operated under leases granted by the Finnish state complained that restrictions imposed by the government to safeguard fish stocks had failed to strike a fair balance under A1P1. The court held that the fishing restrictions were a control, rather than deprivation of property, and that the interference was justified and proportionate; … Continue reading Posti and Rahko v Finland: ECHR 24 Sep 2002
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. It had come to be a habitat for wildlife, and the order prevented the … Continue reading Trailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: CA 15 Dec 2004
The claimant was the owner of a substantial debt owed by another individual. However the value of his debt was reduced to a very small level when the debtor entered a statutory scheme for compromise of debts. Held: It must be open to a legislature to take measures affecting the further execution of previously concluded … Continue reading Back v Finland: ECHR 20 Jul 2004
The Honourable Mr Justice Henshaw  EWHC 3118 (Admin) Bailii Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, European Convention on Human Rights A1P1 England and Wales Benefits, Human Rights Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.656306
The landowner practised from property in Harrow. The former garden had now for many years been used as a forecourt open to the highway, for parking cars of staff and clients. Cars crossed the footpath to gain access, and backing out into the road when leaving. That use was recognised as lawful under planning law. … Continue reading Cusack v London Borough of Harrow: SC 19 Jun 2013
The claimant challenged new conditions imposed on licences to operate his salmon fishery in the Severn Estuary, which operated to defeat his tenancy of the fishery. Held: The request for review succeeded. The decisions to impose the catch conditions were irrational, as the Report did not provide a reasonable basis for the view that the … Continue reading Mott, Regina (on The Application of) v The Environment Agency and Another: Admn 13 Feb 2015
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the court had made each of 16 defendants liable for the full … Continue reading May, Regina v: HL 14 May 2008
Admissibility . .
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
(Admissibility) Legislation which is retroactive is not necessarily incompatible with A1P1, retrospective legislation is not as such prohibited by A1P1. . .
The Court summarised the effect of Sporrong: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 1 of Protocol No 1, which guarantees in substance the right of property, comprises three distinct rules (see, inter alia, . .
(Grand Chamber) The court said of the practice of the Convention institutions under A1 P1: ‘An applicant can allege a violation of article 1 of Protocol 1 only in so far as the impugned decisions related to his ‘possessions’ within the meaning of . .
The claimants complained that their land had been expropriated. Certain plots in a development area had been designated as ‘internal roads’, which were in due course built and opened to the public. The developers sought to transfer ownership to the . .
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) ; Violation of P1-1 ; Just satisfaction reserved ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
The pursuer, a cigarette vending machine operator, challenged section 9 of the 2010 Act saying that the section was incompatible with its rights under article A1P1 of the Convention, and with article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Held: The claim failed. Citations:  CSIH 80 Statutes: European Convention on … Continue reading Sinclair Collis Ltd v Lord Advocate: SCS 2012
Citations: (2005) 42 EHRR 885 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights Cited by: Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011 Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided … Continue reading Maurice v France: ECHR 2005
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings of working households. The challenge was under the 1998 Act on the basis that … Continue reading SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 18 Mar 2015
When determining whether a claimant has possessions or property within the meaning of Article I the court may have regard to national law and will generally do so unless the national law is incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1. Any interference with the enjoyment of property must be justifiable as being in … Continue reading Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium: ECHR 20 Nov 1995
Discrimination in the payment of ‘widows payment’ and widowed mother’s allowance infringed the rights conferred by article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 but no finding was made about the widow’s pension. The risk of the applicant being refused a widow’s pension on grounds of sex at a future date was found to … Continue reading Willis v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jun 2002
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to prosecutions of those who are alleged to have assisted a … Continue reading Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of): SC 25 Jun 2014
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim (Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years. Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is general … Continue reading Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden: ECHR 23 Sep 1982
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered. Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, in that it did not relate to any of the subjects listed … Continue reading Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales): SC 9 Feb 2015
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory. Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to encourage claimants back into work. It was said that thus contradicted the other policy of providing no free … Continue reading DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019
Recognition of illegitimate children The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. A recognised ‘illegitimate’ child’s rights of inheritance on … Continue reading Marckx v Belgium: ECHR 13 Jun 1979
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion. Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a mechanism for the compulsory transfer of the freehold interest in the house and the land to … Continue reading James and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1986
The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Held: The second paragraph reserves to States the right to enact such laws … Continue reading Mellacher and Others v Austria: ECHR 19 Dec 1989
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved; Costs and expenses partial award. Sir Nicolas Bratza, P 35014/97,  ECHR 119 Worldlii, Bailii European Convention on Human Rights Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Hutten-Czapska v Poland ECHR 28-Apr-2008 . .See Also – Hutten-Czapska v Poland ECHR 19-Jun-2006 Grand Chamber. … Continue reading Hutten-Czapska v Poland: ECHR 22 Feb 2005
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment. Held: The appeals failed.Lord Mance summarised the reasons for his conclusions: ‘(A) Human Rights Act In respect … Continue reading Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 16 Oct 2013
A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order. The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may impose conditions in a CTO which amount to the deprivation of his liberty within the meaning of article … Continue reading Welsh Ministers v PJ: SC 17 Dec 2018
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of Commons to bring into law an Act which had not been approved … Continue reading Jackson and others v Attorney General: HL 13 Oct 2005
The claimants challenged the manner of implementation of a benefits cap under the 2012 Act, sayig that it was discriminatory. Lord Dyson MR, Longmore, Lloyd Jones LJJ  PTSR 619,  WLR(D) 91,  EWCA Civ 156 WLRD, Bailii Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012, Welfare Reform Act 2012, European Convention on Human Rights 14 … Continue reading SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others: CA 21 Feb 2014
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster. Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer that the reason for the prorogation was unlawful.‘It was the role of the courts to protect Parliament. … Continue reading Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General: SCS 11 Sep 2019
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; whether time ran from the date of the first breach, whether want of proportionality is … Continue reading Somerville v Scottish Ministers: HL 24 Oct 2007
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several months, during which time her benefits were cancelled. Held: The result was to leave the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva: HL 26 Jun 2003
Under the 1998 and 2006 Acts, the Welsh Assembly was empowered to pass legislation subject to confirmation by the English Parliament Secretary of State. The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 was passed by the Assembly and purported to remove the requirement for confirmation and to add to the list of legislation which might be … Continue reading Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 – Reference By The Attorney General for England and Wales: SC 21 Nov 2012
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (Art. 8); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs … Continue reading Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland: ECHR 29 Oct 1992
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver ‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as management receiver of … Continue reading Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another: SC 8 May 2014
Islamic Nikah Ceremony did not create a marriage The parties had undertaken, in 1998, an Islamic marriage ceremony, a Nikah. They both knew at the time that to be effective in UK law, there would need to be a civil ceremony, and intended but did not achieve one. The parties having settled their dispute, the … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Akhter and Another: CA 14 Feb 2020
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual relationship. Held: (majority) They were not in an analogous situation to civil partners because marriage and … Continue reading Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Apr 2008
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
The applicants complained that on the nationalisation of their interests under the 1977 Act, the compensation awarded had been inadequate and did not reflect their true value.
Held: Convention jurisprudence permits a proportionate restriction . .
Where a person is not at risk of a violation of a Convention right unless and until a particular decision is taken, for example as to deportation, the person cannot claim to be a victim unless and until such a decision is in fact made.
The claimant appealed from refusal of payment of Bereavement Benefit and Widowed Parent’s Allowance on the grounds that she had neither married nor been civil partner of her deceased partner. She applied for judicial review of that decision on the . .
Widowed parent’s allowance. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the legislation was not incompatible with article 14, read either with article 8 or with A1P1 . .
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
Hudoc The applicants challenged a retrospective change in employment law under article 6(1).
Held: The court stated that while in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from adopting . .
The applicant challenged the decision of the respondent Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (‘NILGOSC’) made on 1 July 2011, by which it declined to pay a survivor’s pension to the applicant following the death of . .
Employees claimed religious objections to being obliged to members of a Trades Union.
Held: It is the obligation of states which have ratified the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms which it . .
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
The claimants challenged the benefits cap introduced under the 2012 Act, saying that it was discriminatory, affecting more women than men. Mr Eadie QC submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State that, as ‘an international instrument with no . .
(French Text) An excessively formalistic interpretation of the concept of a ‘victim’ would make protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention ineffectual and illusory. . .
(Commission/admissibility) The applicant’s lease was forfeited on her non-payment of a service charge and possession was ordered. Her primary claim was made (unsuccessfully) under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. But she also . .
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
Hudoc Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (ratione temporis); Preliminary objection allowed (victim); Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible, new complaint)
The applicant companies held . .
The applicant was arrested and placed under house arrest on charges relating to his association with the Mafia. As an interim measure some of his property was seized. The proceedings ended in his acquittal. He claimed that the seizure of his . .
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten ‘cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State’s power of regulation in article 2’. The Convention protects only religions and . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .