Category: Human Rights

In re E (Minors) (Residence Orders: Imposition of Conditions): CA 30 Apr 1997

A residence order can not be accompanied by an order as to where a parent with care must live in the UK or with whom. An appeal may well arise in which a disappointed applicant will contend that section 13(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a disproportionate restriction on a parent’s right to determine her place of habitual residence.
Butler-Sloss LJ said: ‘In my view the principles set out in a long line of authorities relating to leave to remove permanently from the jurisdiction have no application to conditions proposed under section 11(7).’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Saville LJ, Thorpe LJ

Citations:

Times 16-May-1997, [1997] 2 FLR 638, [1997] EWCA Civ 3084

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 8 11(7) 13(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 8 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – In Re G (A Minor) (Interim Care Order: Residential Assessment); G (Children), In Re (Residence: Same Sex Partner) HL 26-Jul-2006
The parties had been a lesbian couple each with children. Each now was in a new relationship. One registered the two daughters of the other at a school now local to her but without first consulting the birth mother, who then applied for residence . .
Cited – In re H (Children: Residence order: Relocation) CA 30-Jul-2001
A court has the power under the Act to impose a condition on a residence order to prevent a proposed move within the UK. Such an order would be exceptional. In the absence of such a condition, there was nothing to require a parent with residence . .
Cited – In re B (A child) (Relocation) CA 24-Jul-2007
The mother appealed against a prohibited steps order preventing her taking the child of the family with her on her relocation to Northern Ireland.
Held: The making of an order either as a prohibited steps order or as a condition of a residence . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Cited – In re F (Children) CA 27-Oct-2010
The mother appealed against refusal of a specific issue order requested to allow her to remove the four children with her from Cleveland to Stronsay in the Orkneys. Both parents were GPs and accepted to be excellent parents. She and her new partner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.81862

Cases Of De Wilde, Ooms And Versyp (‘Vagrancy’) v Belgium (Article 50): ECHR 10 Mar 1972

Citations:

2899/66, [1972] ECHR 1, 2832/66, 2835/66

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – In re De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1) ECHR 18-Nov-1970
The applicants had been detained under Belgian vagrancy laws. An earlier decision had found that their rights had been infringed because of the lack of effective means for them to challenge their detention. The Belgian government said that the . .
See Also – De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium ECHR 18-Jun-1971
ECHR Judgment (Just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465134

Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence: CA 19 Oct 2012

The mother of a soldier claimed after he had died in an attack while serving in Iraq. She asserted that if he had had proper equipment his life would not have been.
Held: Claims arising from the deaths of soldiers on active service abroad alleging breach of the right to life in article 2 of the Convention fell outside the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction under the Convention. However claims in negligence for failing to provide safe equipment and technology to serving soldiers who suffered death or injury would be justiciable here.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger PSC, Moses, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1365, [2013] HRLR 2, [2012] WLR(D) 281, [2013] 1 All ER 778, [2013] 2 WLR 27, [2013] PIQR P3

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Armed Forces, Personal Injury, Human Rights, Negligence

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465045

EM (Eritrea) and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Oct 2012

In each case asylum applicants, after losing their applications, resisted return to Italy, the country of first entry to the EU, saying that they faced inhuman or degrading treatment if returned. Each asserted that they would face destitution owing to inadequate medical care and welfare support in Italy.
Held: Their appeals failed. Whilst the court felt some discomfort with the result, it was a requirement that an person asserting such a risk must show that the risk resulted from systemic failures of the system in the receiving country.

Judges:

Richards, Sullivan LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1336, [2013] HRLR 1, [2012] WLR(D) 282, [2013] 1 WLR 576

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464935

Kent County Council, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The County of Kent (North-West District) and Others: Admn 15 Oct 2012

The council sought review of the coroner’s decision that the inquest would be an article 2 inquest and with a jury. The deceased was 14 years old and had taken methadone. In the months before his death, he had had involvement with the council’s social services department, and he had been assessed to be at considerable risk. A serious cases review had identified many opportunities to help him had been missed.
Held: The request for review succeeded. Foskett J said: ‘the instant case, involving a vulnerable child in the circumstances we have outlined, enters into the potential territory of operational duty . . the question to be considered . . is whether there was a real and immediate risk to the life of EB in the period before his death.’ There was insufficient evidence of such a risk. However the decision to have a jury trial stood.

Judges:

Foskett J, Peter Thornton QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2768 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 2

Citing:

Cited – Regina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson CA 27-Apr-1994
The deceased prisoner had hanged himself. He had been a known suicide risk, and his brother said that the authorities being so aware, the death resulted from their lack of care. The inquest heard in full the circumstannces leading up to the death, . .
Cited – McCann and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Oct-1995
Wrong assumptions made by police officers in the killing of terrorists amounted to a human rights breach, despite the existence of danger to the public of an imminent attack. Article 2(1) is ‘one of the most fundamental provisions in the . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Cited – In re Officer L HL 31-Jul-2007
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry.
Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464850

Buckland v The United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Sep 2012

The applicant alleged that the Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss her appeal and uphold the judgment making a possession order constituted an unjustified breach of her right to respect for her home and her family life and discriminated against her, in violation of Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14.
Held: Where the court is considering making an order for possession against a public sector residential tenant, she must have the opportunity of raising the argument that, in the light of article 8, no order for possession should be made.

Judges:

LechGarlicki, P

Citations:

40060/08 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1710, [2013] HLR 2, (2013) 56 EHRR 16

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8 14

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sims v Dacorum Borough Council SC 12-Nov-2014
Surrender at Common Law Survives Human Rights Law
The tenants held a secure weekly tenancy of the respondent under a joint tenancy. After a relationship breakdown, Mrs Sims had given notice to quit. Mr Sims, left in possession now argued that the common law rules should not be allowed to deprive . .
Cited – McDonald v McDonald and Others SC 15-Jun-2016
Her parents had bought a house and granted tenancies to their adult daughter (the appellant), who suffered a personality disorder. They became unable to repay the mortgage. Receivers were appointed but the appellant fell into arrears with the rent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464480

Shapovalov v Ukraine: ECHR 31 Jul 2012

The claimant, a Ukrainian journalist said that he had (contrary to the Ukranian Information Act 1992) been refused access by administrative authorities during the 2004 elections to certain information and meetings. He relied on article 6 because the Ukrainian courts had wrongly failed on procedural grounds to consider the merits of his complaints.
Held: The complaint succeeded. He relied also on article 10 because of the administrative authorities’ interference with his access. The Government made no submissions on the merits of this complaint, but the Court rejected it on the ground that there was no evidence of interference with his performance of his journalistic activity.

Citations:

45835/05 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1665

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Shapovalova v Ukraine ECHR 22-Sep-2011
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Information

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464364

Nada v Switzerland: ECHR 12 Sep 2012

Grand Chamber – Mr Nada alleged that the ban on entering or transiting through Switzerland, which had been imposed on him as a result of the addition of his name to the list annexed to the FederalTaliban Ordinance, had breached his right to liberty (Article 5 of the Convention) and his right to respect for private and family life, honour and reputation (Article 8). He submitted that this ban was thus also tantamount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3. He further complained of a breach of his freedom to manifest his religion or beliefs (Article 9), arguing that his inability to leave the enclave of Campione d’Italia had prevented him from worshipping at a mosque. Lastly, he complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of those complaints.
Held: The respondent state was under an obligation to interpret and implement the relevant international measure in the manner that interfered to the least extent possible with the right to private life.

Judges:

Nicolas Bratza, P

Citations:

10593/08 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1691, (2013) 56 EHRR 18, 33 BHRC 453

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 5

Cited by:

Cited – Reyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464381

Grainger and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Jul 2012

Citations:

34940/10 – HEDEC, [2012] ECHR 1675

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464354

Regina (T) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department; similar: CA 23 Sep 2003

The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple test could be laid down, and each case is to be considered individually. The appeal court, having seen al the evidence was in a position to judge the situation just as much as was the judge at first instance. The conclusion reached did not follow from the evidence, and was set aside. It was not possible to find inhuman or degrading treatment in the circumstances of this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1285, Times 09-Oct-2003, (2003) 7 CCLR 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X CA 1997
Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best . .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha CA 7-Sep-2000
The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The . .
Cited – O’Rourke v United Kingdom ECHR 26-Jun-2001
The applicant was a sex offender who on release from prison had found temporary accommodation from which he had been evicted for pestering female residents. He ignored advice to go to a night shelter whilst a decision on permanent re-housing was . .
Cited – East African Asians v United Kingdom ECHR 1973
(Commission) A group of Asian men, United Kingdom citizens, complained that, among other things, their Article 8 rights to respect for family life were infringed when they were refused permission to enter the United Kingdom to join their wives. The . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Applied – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 4-Feb-2004
The claimant had sought asylum on the day after arrival, and had therefore been refused any assistance beyond the provision of a list of charities who might assist. His lawyers were unable to secure either shelter or maintenance, and he had been . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Benefits, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.186380

Abacha, Bagudu v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Federal Republic of Nigeria Interested Party: Admn 18 Oct 2001

Attempts were being made by the Federal Government of Nigeria to recover moneys alleged to have been taken fraudulently from the state. They sought assistance from the UK, and the claimants sought details of that request. The statute provided that assistance should be confidential. The claimants asserted that since the fact of the request had been made public, the contents should be also in order to remedy a procedural unfairness. The request complied with the statutory requirements, and had to be accepted. No criminal proceedings were to follow. The court rejected the assertion of unfairness. It was important not to allow international requests of this nature not to be abused, but there was no requirement on the Secretary of State to seek any undertaking as to the use of material obtained, and any question of abuse was for the courts of the country concerned.

Judges:

The Right Honourable Lord Justice TuckeyCitations: [2001] EWHC Admin 787

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Zadari v Secretary of State Admn 2001
In exercising his discretion on whether to transmit requested information to a foreign government, the respondent had to weigh all competing interests to safeguard against an abuse of the international mutual assistance process by foreign . .

Cited by:

Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.166640

Procurator Fiscal, Fort William v Mclean and Another: HCJ 11 Aug 2000

A rule which restricted the amount payable to a defendant to cover his legal fees in defending a case brought against him to pounds 550.00 was not an infringement of his human rights. To demonstrate a breach of the right to a fair trial, the defendant must show not only prejudice, but also some material disadvantage involving an actual and material risk of harm to his defence.

Citations:

Times 11-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed payments)(Scotland) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 491)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Legal Aid, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.85053

Harkins v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jan 2017

Press release (extradition order to face trial for first-degree murder in the United States of America (USA))

Citations:

71537/14 (, [2017] ECHR 66

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Harkins v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2017
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Harkins v The United Kingdom ECHR 31-Mar-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.573648

Volchkova and Mironov v Russia: ECHR 28 Mar 2017

Judgment : Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Deprivation of property
ECHR Judgment : Pecuniary damage – award : Third Section

Citations:

45668/05, [2017] ECHR 278, [2021] ECHR 184

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.581390

Stefanetti And Others v Italy: ECHR 15 Apr 2014

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Loss of two-thirds of old-age pension as a result of introduction of legislation effectively deciding outcome of pending litigation against the State: violation
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Introduction of legislation effectively deciding outcome of pending litigation against the State: violation
Facts – The applicants, who were Italian nationals, lived and worked for many years in Switzerland before retiring to Italy. On their return to Italy the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS), an Italian welfare body, decided to re-adjust their pension claims to take into account the low contributions they had paid while working in Switzerland (where contributions came to 8% of salary, as opposed to 32.7% in Italy). The applicants brought proceedings to contest this method of calculating their pension rights. However, while the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts, Law no. 296/2006 was introduced, which effectively endorsed the INPS’s interpretation of the relevant legislation. The applicants’ claims were thus dismissed and as a result they lost around two-thirds (67%) of their pensions.
Law – Article 6 ss 1: The need for legislative intervention had only arisen as a result of the State’s decision, in 1982, to reform the pension system so that the amount received in pension was no longer dependent on the contributions paid, but on the remuneration received. The State had thus itself created a disparity which it had not tried to amend until some 24 years later. Given that in the decades preceding the introduction of the new law, various individuals in the applicants’ position had successfully challenged the calculation used by the INPS and there had therefore been a majority interpretation in favour of the claimants, legislative interference shifting the balance in favour of one of the parties had not been foreseeable. Even assuming that the law did aim at reintroducing the legislator’s original wishes following the changes in 1982, the aim of re-establishing an equilibrium in the pension system, while in the general interest, was not compelling enough to overcome the dangers inherent in the use of retrospective legislation affecting a pending dispute. Indeed, even accepting that the State was attempting to adjust a situation it had not originally intended to create, it could have done so perfectly well without resorting to a retrospective application of the law. Furthermore, the fact that the State had waited 24 years before making such an adjustment, despite the fact that numerous pensioners who had worked in Switzerland had been repeatedly winning their claims before the domestic courts, also created doubts as to whether Law no. 296/2006 was really supposed to embody the legislator’s intention in 1982. The Court therefore reaffirmed its findings in the case of Maggio and Others v. Italy (46286/09 et al., 31 May 2011, Information Note 141).
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: In Maggio and Others, the fact that the applicant had lost considerably less than half of his pension, which had therefore amounted to a reasonable and commensurate reduction, had undeniably carried some weight in the finding that the provision had not been breached. Given the more substantial reduction in the instant case and in view of the contributions paid by the applicants, the Court had to reassess the matter and scrutinise the reduction more closely. A reduction of two-thirds of one’s pension (and not solely of a benefit linked to pensions) was indisputably, in itself, a sizeable decrease which must seriously affect a person’s standard of living. Of particular importance were the two factors already considered in Maggio and Others. Primarily, that the applicants had, on the one hand, paid lower contributions in percentage terms in Switzerland than they would have paid in Italy, but on the other had had to pay, in absolute terms, contributions of a considerable amount during long contributory periods of their entire active life in Switzerland. The second factor was that the reduction had been aimed at, but had not had the effect of, equalising a state of affairs and avoiding unjustified advantages (resulting from the decision to retire in Italy) for people in the applicants’ position.
According to statistical data for the year 2010, in Italy, the average old-age pension for that year was EUR 1,251 monthly and the minimum pension amounted to EUR 461 per month. The European Committee of Social Rights had observed that that level of minimum pension fell below 40% of the median equalised income (Eurostat) and was thus inadequate.
The applicants had received old-age monthly pensions varying between EUR 714 and EUR 1,820. Indeed, save for one applicant, all the applicants had received less than the average monthly pension in Italy, and six out of eight applicants had received less than EUR 1,000 per month. The difference in sums received between the applicants reflected their job category as well as the different periods of time they had spent in Switzerland and in consequence the actual contributions they had paid. When assessing a reduction of social-security payments, it was indeed of significance that such pensions had been based on actual contributions paid by the applicants (transferred to the relevant disbursing authority), albeit lower than those paid by others, and that therefore they had not been a gratuitous welfare aid solely funded by the tax-payer in general.
Relying on the conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights, the Court found that the majority of the sums at issue, which did not exceed EUR 1,000 a month, had to be considered as providing for only basic commodities. Thus, the reductions had undoubtedly affected the applicants’ way of life and hindered its enjoyment substantially. The same could also be said of the higher pensions, despite them allowing for more comfortable living.
Furthermore, the Court could not lose sight of the fact that the applicants had made a conscious decision to move back to Italy at a time when they had had a legitimate expectation of receiving higher pensions, and therefore a more comfortable standard of living. However, as a result of the calculation applied by the INPS and eventually the impugned legislative action, they had not only found themselves in a more difficult financial situation but had further had to institute proceedings to recover what they had deemed was due and those proceedings which had been frustrated by the Government’s actions in breach of the Convention. Through those actions, the Italian legislature had arbitrarily deprived the applicants of their claims to the amount of pension which they could legitimately expect to be determined in accordance with the settled case-law of the domestic courts, an element which could not be ignored for the purpose of determining the proportionality of the impugned measure. No compelling general interest reasons had justified a retrospective application of the Law no. 296/2006, which was unforeseeable.
In conclusion, by losing 67% of their pensions based on contributions paid, the applicants had not suffered commensurate reductions but had been made to bear an excessive burden. Thus, despite the reasons behind the impugned measures, the Court could not find that a fair balance had been struck.
Conclusion: violation (five votes to two).
Article 41: EUR 12,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Question of compensation for pecuniary damage reserved.

Citations:

21838/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 550, [2014] ECHR 769

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.526274

Al-Dulimi and Montana Management In. v Switzerland (Legal Summary): ECHR 26 Nov 2013

Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Lack of right of appeal against sanctions imposed on applicants on basis of UN Security Council resolutions: violation
Facts – The first applicant is an Iraqi national who lives in Jordan and manages a company incorporated under Panamanian law and based in Panama (the second applicant). After the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990, the UN Security Council adopted several resolutions inviting member and non-member States to freeze all funds and other financial assets and economic resources that came from Iraq. In November 2003 a sanctions committee was tasked with drawing up a list of the leading members of the former Iraqi regime and their next of kin, and locating the assets belonging to them or to other persons acting on their behalf or under their control. The sanctions committee placed the applicants on its list. Then the Security Council adopted a resolution creating a de-listing procedure. In August 1990 the Swiss Federal Council adopted an order introducing measures to freeze the assets and economic resources of the former Iraqi government and senior government officials and any companies or businesses controlled or managed by them. The Federal Department of Economics was responsible for drawing up a list of the assets concerned using data supplied by the United Nations. The applicants had been on the list since May 2004. The Federal Council further adopted an order, valid until 30 June 2010, confiscating the Iraqi assets and economic resources that had been frozen and transferring them to the Development Fund for Iraq. According to the applicants, their assets in Switzerland had been frozen since August 1990 and proceedings to confiscate them had been under way since the entry into force of the confiscation order in May 2004. The applicants applied by letter in August 2004 to have their names taken off the list and the confiscation proceedings against their assets stayed. When that letter failed to produce the desired effect, the applicants requested by letter in September 2005 that the confiscation proceedings be conducted in Switzerland. In spite of the applicants’ objections, the Federal Department of Economic Affairs ordered the confiscation of their assets and explained that the sums would be transferred to the bank account of the Development Fund for Iraq within ninety days of the decision becoming effective. In support of its decision, it noted that the applicants’ names were on the lists of people and entities drawn up by the sanctions committee, that Switzerland was bound to implement Security Council resolutions, and that names could be removed from the appendix to the order concerning Iraq only by decision of the sanctions committee. The applicants applied to the Federal Court to have the decision set aside. By three almost identical judgments their appeals were dismissed on the merits. The applicants submitted a de-listing request. The request was rejected on 6 January 2009.
Law – Article 6 ss 1
(a) Coexistence of the Convention safeguards and the obligations imposed on States by Security Council resolutions – The Convention did not prevent Contracting Parties from transferring sovereign powers to an international organisation for the purposes of cooperation in certain fields of activity. State action taken in compliance with such legal obligations was justified as long as the relevant organisation was considered to protect fundamental rights in a manner which could be considered at least equivalent to that provided for under the Convention. States nevertheless remained responsible under the Convention for all acts falling outside their strict international legal obligations, particularly where they had exercised discretionary powers. Most cases coming before the Court relating to the equivalent protection criterion concerned the relationship between European Union law and the guarantees deriving from the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court had never excluded the application of this criterion to a situation concerning compatibility of acts originating from other international organisations with the Convention. The instant case could be considered in the light of the equivalent protection criterion, notably because the relevant Security Council resolutions did not confer discretionary powers on the States in question in implementing the consequent obligations. The system in place allowing the applicants to apply to a ‘focal point’ for removal from the lists drawn up by the Security Council did not provide equivalent protection to that required by the Convention. It lacked a supervisory mechanism comparable to the Office of the Ombudsperson set up under the sanctions regime against the former Iraqi Government. Furthermore, the procedural defects of the sanctions regime could not be considered to have been offset by internal human rights protection mechanisms, given that the Federal Court had refused to review the merits of the impugned measures. The presumption of equivalent protection was therefore not applicable in this case. It was consequently for the Court to determine the merits of the complaint concerning the right of access to a court.
(b) Examination of the complaint concerning access to a court – The applicants, who had tried in vain to appeal to the Swiss courts against the confiscation of their assets, had been restricted in their right of access to a court. The restriction had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance of peace and international security. The refusal by the national courts, including the Federal Court, to examine the merits of the applicants’ complaints concerning the confiscation of their assets had been motivated by their wish to ensure effective implementation, at domestic level, of the obligations arising from the Resolution in question. The Resolution, which provided for the freezing and confiscation of assets, had not been adopted in response to any imminent terrorist threat but had been geared to restoring the Iraqi Government’s autonomy and sovereignty and securing to the Iraqi people the right freely to determine their political future and control their natural resources. Consequently, the impugned measures had been adopted in the wake of an armed conflict which had begun in 1990. Therefore, more differentiated, specifically targeted measures would probably be more conducive to the effective implementation of the Resolutions. Furthermore, the applicants’ assets had been frozen in 1990 and their confiscation had been ordered on 16 November 2006. The applicants had therefore been deprived of access to their assets for a considerable period of time, even if the confiscation decision had not yet been implemented. The applicants were entitled under Article 6 ss 1 of the Convention to have these measures reviewed by a national court. The Federal Court had ruled that it was incumbent on the lower court to grant the first applicant a brief final period within which to submit to the Sanctions Committee a fresh request for de-listing in accordance with the improved arrangements set out in Resolution 1730 (2006), including the setting up of a focal point for submission of de-listing requests. However, that request had been rejected on 6 January 2009.
Accordingly, in the absence of any effective and independent judicial review, at UN level, of the legitimacy of registering individuals and entities on their lists, it was vital that such individuals and entities should be authorised to request an examination by the national courts of any measure adopted in application of the sanctions regime. As no such examination had been available to the applicants, it followed that the very essence of their right of access to a court had been infringed.
Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).
Article 41: claim in respect of damage dismissed.

Citations:

5809/08, [2013] ECHR 153

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.521845

Corey, Re Judicial Review: CANI 21 Dec 2012

The claimant had been recalled to prison from parole, and challenged his recall, saying that the procedure, being almost entirely based upon closed material infringed his rights to a fair trial. The respondent now appealed against an order finding the Commissioners in breach.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The material provided to the appellant and his advisers was sufficient to allow him to give effective instructions to those representing him. There was therefore no breach of article 5(4) of the Convention.

Judges:

Morgan LCJ

Citations:

[2012] NICA 57

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4, Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 9(4)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Corey, Re Judicial Review QBNI 9-Jul-2012
C had been recalled from parole, and complained that the procedure had been unfair in that it had been almost entirely based upon closed materials.
Held: The Commissioners’ decision was indeed based solely or decisively on the closed material. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Martin Corey, Re for Judicial Review SC 4-Dec-2013
The appellant challenged his recall to prison from licence. He had been convicted in 1973 of the murder of two police officers. He had remained at liberty for 18 years, befire his licence was revoked on the basis of confidential iintelligence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.468849

Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another: Admn 4 Sep 2012

It was said that a squad of the British army had caused the deaths of 24 civilians in 1948 in Batang Kali (now part of Malaysia.
Held: No inquiry was required. It was a matter of discretion, and there were no sustainable reasons for overturning the decisions of the respondents.

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P, Treacy J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin), [2012] WLR(D) 261

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Inquiries Act 2005 1, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 19-Mar-2014
In 1948, there had been an incident in what later became part of Malaysia, in a counter insurgency patrol, when 24 civilians were said to have been killed by a patrol from the Scots Guards. The claimant now appealed against the refusal of a further . .
At first instance – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Human Rights, Armed Forces

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463812

Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others: Admn 9 Aug 2012

The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence against him would have been obtained by torture.

Judges:

Hughes LJ Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2349 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
ECHR PR – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
SIAC Bail application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .
SIAC – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .

Cited by:

See Also – Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) Ltd and Another v Drivers Jonas (A Firm) CA 8-Nov-2012
The defendants appealed against the quantum of damages awarded against them for professional negligence in the valuation of a factory outlet centre. They said that in calculating damages for the trust claimants, the court should allow for the tax . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Admn Reasons – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
Admn Reasons – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463651

R And H v The United Kingdom: ECHR 31 May 2011

The court considered arrangements for an adoption in Northern Ireland where the parent’s consent was withheld.
Held: For parental consent to be overriden there had to be shown an overriding need for the decision.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki P

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 844, (2012) 54 EHRR 2, [2011] Fam Law 924, [2011] 2 FLR 1236,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8, Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 3(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Johansen v Norway ECHR 7-Aug-1996
The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents’ wishes.
Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the . .
See Also – R and H v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2008
The claimants complained at the procedure used to free their child for adoption against their wishes. . .

Cited by:

Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Adoption, Northern Ireland

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463635

Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Jul 2007

(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the President that would have the effect that they be detained indefinitely and/or that they would be put on trial before a military commission in violation of their rights under articles 3, 5 and 6 of ECHR. By Diplomatic Notes, the government of the US had given assurances that upon extradition they would be prosecuted before a federal court with the full panoply of rights and protection that would be provided to any defendant facing similar charges.
Held: There was to be a fundamental assumption that the requesting state was acting in good faith when giving assurances in Diplomatic Notes. The assurances in the notes were given by a mature democracy. The United States was a state with which the United Kingdom had entered into five substantial treaties on extradition over a period of more than 150 years. Over this period there was no instance of any assurance having been dishonoured.

Citations:

[2007] ECHR 674, 24027/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2007
(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime. . .
At Court of Appeal – Ahmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .

Cited by:

See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jul-2010
It will only be in exceptional circumstances that an applicant’s private or family life in a contracting state will outweigh the legitimate aim pursued by his or her extradition. Recalling that there is no right in the Convention not to be . .
See Also – Babar Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Apr-2012
The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, International

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463498

Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom: ECHR 6 Jul 2010

It will only be in exceptional circumstances that an applicant’s private or family life in a contracting state will outweigh the legitimate aim pursued by his or her extradition. Recalling that there is no right in the Convention not to be extradited and that, by implication, there is no right to be prosecuted in a particular jurisdiction, the Court said that it was not its task to adjudicate on the natural forum for prosecution. Its only task was to determine whether that extradition would be compatible with the applicant’s Convention rights.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

(2010) 51 EHRR SE6, 24027/07, [2010] ECHR 1067

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2007
(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime. . .
See Also – Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-2007
(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Babar Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Apr-2012
The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463497

Regina v Gemmell: CACD 17 Jul 2002

Dyson LJ said: ‘The position is quite clear. So far as Article 6 is concerned, the fairness of the provisions of the substantive law of the Contracting States is not a matter for investigation. The content and interpretation of domestic substantive law is not engaged by Article 6.’

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1992, [2003] 1 Cr App R 343

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.270007

CN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 19 Jun 2007

Increased risk of claimant committing suicide if returned home.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 587

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Home Affairs Admn 31-Jul-2009
Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.253492

Regina (O) v Harrow Crown Court: Admn 16 Apr 2003

The defendant had been refused bail. He had a previous conviction for rape, and now faced another charge. The custody time limit had also now expired. He complained that the removal of the statutory presumption in favour of bail infringed his rights.
Held: Under s25, a defendant in this category should be granted bail only in exceptional circumstances. Was that section incompatible with the defendants article 5 rights? Such persons posed a substantial risk if released. The section allowed for exceptions, and was not incompatible. The question of whether the court was satisfied that exceptional grounds existed should not be construed narrowly. Justices should set out reasoned findings under the section. (Hooper) S25 should be read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Hooper J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 868 (Admin), Times 29-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2756

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Bail Act 1976 4(1) 25, Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 5(6B)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hurnam v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant complained that the Mauritian Bail Act as interpreted contravened his Human Rights.
Held: ‘a person charged with a serious offence, facing a severe penalty if convicted, may well have a powerful incentive to abscond . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.182726

Hari Dhima v Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Admn 8 Feb 2002

The appellate sought judicial review to challenge an order for his return to Albania. He said that he would be subject to persecution from communist sympathizers, and his life was at risk for a blood feud. Adjudicators had variously accepted and rejected both claims, but concluded that he could avail himself of internal flight. He challenged the applicability of the test in Horvath in human rights cases, which did not include a qualification to the right for protection where state aid may be available.
Held: The conventions should be read purposively. The difference is apparent only. The human rights test is affected by the availability of state protection, because that reduces the risk of harm. The burden was on the applicant to show that internal flight was not available. That test had been properly applied by the adjudicator. Review refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, And, Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 80 (Admin), [2002] Imm AR 394

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65(1), European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Ahmed v Austria ECHR 17-Dec-1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and . .
Cited – Kacaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Mar-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.167593

Regina (SR) v Nottingham Magistrates’ Court: Admn 19 Oct 2001

The applicant SR, aged 15, was remanded in custody to a Youth Offenders Institution pending sentence. Had he been a girl, he could not have been so remanded, since no similar provision was available for them. He complained that the law infringed his human rights. It was accepted that he was properly dealt with under the rules. For Art 14, a difference is discriminatory if it ‘has no objective and reasonable justification’, that is, it pursues no ‘legitimate aim’ or if there is no ‘reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means and the aim to be realised’. The court refused the declaration of incompatibility requested, but ordered that the committal to custody had been wrong.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Newman

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 802

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 98, European Convention on Human Rights art 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inze v Austria ECHR 28-Oct-1987
Art 14 was engaged in respect of discrimination over future interests despite Marckx. The case turned on what singular provisions of Austrian inheritance law, whereby the illegitimate claimant had some, but incomplete, rights on his mother’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Children, Discrimination

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.166635

Comingersoll S A v Portugal: ECHR 6 Apr 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
When assessing the affect on fairness of proceedings becoming unreasonably extended in time, the court should look at the particular complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute.

Citations:

19, ECHR 2000-IV, 35382/97, [2000] ECHR 159, [2000] ECHR 160

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Skawinska v Poland ECHR 16-Sep-2003
The applicant complained that criminal proceedings against her in Poland had not been concluded within a reasonable time. The proceedings began in 1992, and were concluded only in 2000. The respondent contended that in large part the delays were of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.165857

Scoppola v Italy (No 2): ECHR 8 Jun 2011

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 1290

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Scoppola v Italy (No 2) ECHR 17-Sep-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicant murdered his wife on 2 September 1999; the offence was punishable by life imprisonment. On 18 February 2000, he agreed to be tried under a summary procedure. It lacked some of the safeguards of a full trial but carried . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.631561