Category: Human Rights

Emina Alisic And Others v Bosnia And Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia And The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia: ECHR 17 Oct 2011

Citations:

60642/08, [2011] ECHR 1911

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Alisic And Others v Bosnia And Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia And The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia ECHR 6-Nov-2012
. .
See Also – Alisic And Others v Bosnia And Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia And The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia ECHR 16-Jul-2014
Grand Chamber – Article 46
Pilot judgment
General measures
Slovenia and Serbia required to take measures to enable applicants and all others in their position to recover ‘old’ foreign-currency savings
Article 1 of Protocol . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448418

Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 14 Sep 2011

Grand Chamber – Execution of the judgment

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 1658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448320

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P: CA 9 Nov 2011

The claimant, a disabled adult with cerebral palsy and Downs, asserted that the care plan set out in an order of the Court of Protection involved a contravention of his human rights since it involved a deprivation of his liberty. He was incontinent but without control, would tear off parts of his incontinence pad and eat it. His carers had taken to dressing him in an adult babygrow to prevent this.
Held:The Council’s appeal succeeded. When assessing whether there had been a deprivation of liberty, it was correct to allow both for the objective reason why someone was so placed and also the purpose of the placement. As regards an adult with disability, their situation was to be determined by comparison with a similar age and capability, and with similar inherent mental and physical disabilities. The comparator was not the average man or woman on the Clapham omnibus.

Judges:

Pill, Lloyd, Munby LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1257, [2012] PTSR 1447, [2011] WLR (D) 325

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another COP 14-Jun-2011
The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 18-Nov-2011
. .
Appeal from – P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448295