Citations:
20212/11, [2012] ECHR 551
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452557
20212/11, [2012] ECHR 551
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452557
51326/07, [2012] ECHR 532
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452559
4352/09, [2012] ECHR 607
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452542
35846/06, [2012] ECHR 577
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452546
19424/07, [2012] ECHR 572
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452550
51380/10, [2012] ECHR 551
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452560
24082/03, [2012] ECHR 547
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452534
44303/05, [2012] ECHR 542
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452533
22026/10, [2012] ECHR 557
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452535
52809/08, [2012] ECHR 610
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452525
48814/06, [2012] ECHR 536
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452538
18977/06, [2012] ECHR 561
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452536
32846/07, [2012] ECHR 571
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452524
6980/10, [2012] ECHR 602
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452526
56765/08, [2012] ECHR 521
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452537
7100/07, [2012] ECHR 575
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452527
1282/05, [2012] ECHR 545
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452529
29441/06, [2012] ECHR 538
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452541
1900/04, [2012] ECHR 524
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452532
54577/07, [2012] ECHR 556
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452528
36707/04, [2012] ECHR 580
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452523
13556/07, [2012] ECHR 534
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452531
6118/10, [2012] ECHR 603
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452530
7120/05, [2012] ECHR 544
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452539
10390/09, [2012] ECHR 629
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452522
13902/11, [2012] ECHR 596
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452540
34454/10, [2012] ECHR 598
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452520
1769/08, [2012] ECHR 570
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452521
13199/07, [2012] ECHR 535
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452517
18757/06, [2010] ECHR 1730
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.425882
51496/08, [2012] ECHR 628
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452514
7319/05, [2010] ECHR 1728
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.425883
46538/11 3960/12, [2012] ECHR 559
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452511
16853/10, [2012] ECHR 601
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452515
22800/05, [2012] ECHR 540
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452516
47039/11 358/12, [2012] ECHR 608
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452512
7706/06, [2012] ECHR 578
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452518
39185/09, [2012] ECHR 531
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452513
30141/09, [2012] ECHR 600
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – 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.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452519
43586/04, [2010] ECHR 1734
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.425880
(Grand Chamber) The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to detain him for a short period while his asylum claim was being subject to fast-track processing. The decision was made pursuant to a policy under which all asylum claimants falling within defined criteria (usually by nationality) were normally detained at Oakington while their claims were determined in an accelerated process. The Grand Chamber examined the concept of arbitrary detention in the context of the first limb of article 5(1)(f) authorising a detention to prevent the person making an unauthorised entry to the country. The Chamber directed itself to the restrictions permitted by the various sub-paragraphs of article 5(1), saying that it is fundamental that no arbitrary detention can be compatible with article 5(1) and that the notion of ‘arbitrariness’ extends beyond lack of conformity with national law. The notion of arbitrariness in the context of this article varies to a certain extent depending on the type of detention involved. To avoid being branded as arbitrary, such detention must be carried out in good faith and its length should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued.
‘One general principle established in the case law is that detention will be ‘arbitrary’ where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities. The condition that there be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of article 5(1). There must in addition be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention.
The notion of arbitrariness in the contexts of sub-paras (b), (d) and (e) also includes an assessment whether detention was necessary to achieve the stated aim. The detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is justified only as a last resort where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained. The principle of proportionality further dictates that where detention is to secure the fulfilment of an obligation provided by law, a balance must be struck between the importance in a democratic society of securing the immediate fulfilment of the obligation in question, and the importance of the right to liberty. The duration of the detention is a relevant factor in striking such a balance.
The court applies a different approach towards the principle that there should be no arbitrariness in cases of detention under article 5(1)(a), where, in the absence of bad faith or one of the other grounds set out in para 69 above, as long as the detention follows and has a sufficient causal connection with a lawful conviction, the decision to impose a sentence of detention and the length of that sentence are matters for the national authorities rather than for the court under article 5(1).’
[2008] ECHR 79, [2008] ECHR 80, 13229/03, (2008) 47 EHRR 17, [2008] Imm AR 368, [2008] INLR 436
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)(f)
Human Rights
See Also – Saadi v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2006
The claimant had been detained as an asylum seeker. He complained that reasons for his detention were not given to him or his lawyer for 76 hours.
Held: The delay was incompatible with the applicant’s rights. . .
See Also – Saadi v United Kingdom ECHR 16-May-2007
Grand Chamber – Press Release . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
See Also – Saadi v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Jun-2010
Execution of the judgment . .
Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Cited – Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jul-2016
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.280504
66354/01, [2006] ECHR 875
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.246532
7497/02, [2006] ECHR 577
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.243862
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The court set out a list of cases in which a person can be deprived of liberty without infringement of Article 5
49902/99, [2004] ECHR 196, (2004) 17 BHRC 398
Human Rights
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.196848
The court held that ‘the medical experts did actually cause a certain amount of delay in the conduct of the proceedings,’ and rejected the complaint under article 5(3): ‘[T]he delay due to the medical reports, although improper, does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for a finding that there was a violation of article 5(3) of the Convention. The total length of the detention pending trial in this case-two years, three months and nineteen days-does not appear excessive in view of the seriousness of the charges and the number of matters requiring investigation.’
35776/97, [2002] ECHR 632, (2003) 36 EHRR 854, [2002] ECHR 637
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.213204
20134/92, [2002] ECHR 519
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.213139
The doctor had been allowed to continue in practice only on condition that he did not drink alcohol and that he complied with other conditions to support that restriction. He challenged it as an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The conditions were in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and in the wider interest of protecting his patients. There were limits to the right to a private life, and those had not been transgressed.
Hope of Craighead L, Sir Denis Jenry, Sir Philip Otton
Times 29-Nov-2002, [2002] UKPC 62
European Convention on Human Rights Art 8
England and Wales
Cited – Bruggeman and Scheuten v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 12-Jul-1977
(Commission) The applicants complained at restrictions on the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
Held: Article 8(1) secures to the individual a sphere within which he can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his personality. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.178295
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved; Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
A person detained as a juvenile in need of educational supervision should not be detained in a prison where no education is available. The applicant’s successive placements in a remand prison, by way of interim custody measure, amounted to unlawful detention under Article 5-1 and that he had not been able to take any proceedings satisfying the requirements of Article 5
9106/80, [1988] ECHR 1, (1989) 11 EHRR 1
Human Rights
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
See Also – Bouamar v Belgium ECHR 27-Jun-1988
. .
Cited – Brown v The Parole Board for Scotland, The Scottish Ministers and Another SC 1-Nov-2017
The court was asked whether the duty under article 5 to provide prisoners with a real opportunity for rehabilitation applied to prisoners serving extended sentences. The prisoner was subject to an extended sentence, but had been released on licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.165007
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
28724/95, [2002] ECHR 587
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.174280
ECHR Judgment : Fifth Section Committee
51722/19, [2021] ECHR 168
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.658865
M and F, members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect, had five children. F transgendered and sought and was granted an order for restricted indirect contact. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Held: F now accepted with great reluctance the children’s opposition to contact, and the matter as formally abandoned.
Hayden J
[2020] EWFC 3
England and Wales
At FD (1) – J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) FC 30-Jan-2017
F had left the family all ultra orthodox Jews, to identify and live as a woman, an action straightforwardly forbidden within the sect. F had abandoned contact with the children but now sought to re-instate at first indirect but then full contact. M, . .
At CA – Re M (Children) CA 20-Dec-2017
F and M were members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect. H transgendered, a process utterly unacceptable within the sect. Any continued association with the children would severely risk their ostracism, and at first F did not seek contact, but on his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.646220
69037/10 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1779
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.464634
2594/07 – HEJUD, [2012] ECHR 1772
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.464633
(Grand Chamber) Reputation falls within the ambit of the protection afforded by article 8
Wildhaber P
33348/96, (2005) 41 EHRR 14, [2004] ECHR 692
European Convention on Human Rights 10
See Also – Cumpana Et Mazare v Roumanie ECHR 10-Jun-2003
Reputation can be a Convention right within Article 8. . .
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd SC 21-Mar-2012
The defendant had published an article which was defamatory of the claimant police officer, saying that he was under investigation for alleged corruption. The inquiry later cleared him. The court was now asked whether the paper had Reynolds type . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452429
ECHR (Commission) The applicants had conducted a sit-in, to protest against nuclear arms, and which obstructed a highway, which gave access to a US army barracks in Germany, for twelve minutes every hour.
Held: Applying the authorities, the Commission said that it considered that ‘the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is secured to everyone who organises or participates in a peaceful demonstration.’
However, it went on to say that: ‘[T]he applicant’s conviction for having participated in a sit-in can reasonably be considered as necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and crime. In this respect, the Commission considers especially that the applicant had not been punished for his participation in the demonstration . . as such, but for particular behaviour in the course of the demonstration, namely the blocking of a public road, thereby causing more obstruction than would normally arise from the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly. The applicant and the other demonstrators had thereby intended to attract broader public attention to their political opinions concerning nuclear armament. However, balancing the public interest in the prevention of disorder and the interest of the applicant and the other demonstrators in choosing the particular form of a sit-in, the applicant’s conviction for the criminal offence of unlawful coercion does not appear disproportionate to the aims pursued.’
CA Norgaard, P
[1989] ECHR 28, 13079/87
Human Rights
Cited – The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul’s Churchyard Camp Representative) and Others CA 22-Feb-2012
The defendants sought to appeal against an order for them to vacate land outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London which they occupied as a protest.
Held: The application for leave to appeal failed. The only possible ground for appeal was on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452371
51661/08, [2012] ECHR 509
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452297
42009/07, [2012] ECHR 507
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452298
55167/07, [2012] ECHR 503
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452299
44499/07, [2012] ECHR 505
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452278
2514/10, [2012] ECHR 494
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452282
61873/09, [2012] ECHR 495
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452283
2709/10, [2012] ECHR 493
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452270
4572/06, [2012] ECHR 511
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452291
58141/10, [2012] ECHR 488
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452272
55595/10, [2012] ECHR 489
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452284
6530/10, [2012] ECHR 491
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452273
27780/10, [2012] ECHR 490
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452275
54415/09, [2012] ECHR 496
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452277
29848/11, [2012] ECHR 487
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452286
4955/09, [2012] ECHR 501
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452295
5123/07, [2012] ECHR 518
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452292
6195/10, [2012] ECHR 492
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452279
11126/09, [2012] ECHR 499
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452285
42801/07, [2012] ECHR 506
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452280
48833/08, [2012] ECHR 500
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452288
49247/08, [2012] ECHR 510
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452287
23338/09, [2012] ECHR 516
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452281
36035/04, [2012] ECHR 519
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452289
52677/09, [2005] ECHR 497
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452264
29687/09, [2012] ECHR 498
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452269
10614/06, [2012] ECHR 513
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452267
45071/09, [2012] ECHR 515
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452266
16230/07, [2006] ECHR 508
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452265
Lord Neuberger MR, Richards, David LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 276, [2013] PTSR 141
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451901
29964/10, [2010] ECHR 1239, [2012] ECHR 253
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.424038
23199/10, [2010] ECHR 756, [2011] ECHR 1200
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.416323
31271/02, [2006] ECHR 589
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.243874
67144/01, [2006] ECHR 618
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.243902
[2001] EWCA Civ 1825
England and Wales
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.218540
A properly conducted examination of proportionality when considering a deportation is quite capable of producing a decision in favour of the applicant.
Unreported, 11 July 2002
Human Rights
Cited – Machado v Secretary of State for the Home Deptment CA 19-May-2005
At issue was a decision of the Home Secretary to deport on grounds of public policy a foreign national married to an EU national with a right of establishment in the United Kingdom. The substantive issue was whether the decision of the IAT to uphold . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.225195
Delay in hearing
[2003] EWHC 72 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.184622
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into private lives and sexual activity were intrusive, and given the excessive consequences following, were also striking in their inability to admit of exceptions. The threshold at which the High Court and the Court of Appeal could find the Ministry of Defence policy irrational was placed so high that it effectively excluded any consideration by the domestic courts of the question of whether the interference with the applicants’ rights answered a pressing social need or was proportionate to the national security and public order aims pursued, principles which lie at the heart of the court’s analysis of complaints under article 8 of the Convention.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No separate issue under Art. 14+8; No violation of Art. 3 or Art. 14+3; Not necessary to examine under Art. 10 or Art. 14+10; Violation of Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Gazette 10-Nov-1999, Times 11-Oct-1999, (1999) 29 EHRR 493, (1999) IRLR 734, (2001) 31 EHRR 620, [2000] 29 EHRR 549, [2000] ECHR 383, 33986/96, [1999] ECHR 72, [1999] ECHR 180, 33985/96
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 13 41, Prison Act 1952, European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Defence Ex Parte Smith; Regina v Same Ex Parte Grady Etc CA 6-Nov-1995
A ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces was not irrational, and the challenge to the ban failed. The greater the policy content of a decision, and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more . .
Appeal from – Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady CA 3-Nov-1995
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to . .
Cited – The Association of British Civilian Internees – Far Eastern Region (ABCIFER) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 3-Apr-2003
The association sought a judicial review of a decision not to pay compensation in respect of their or their parents or grandparents’ internment by the Japanese in the Second World War. Payment was not made because those interned were not born in . .
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
Cited – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Cited – Pay v Lancashire Probation Service EAT 29-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained . .
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 – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Wilkinson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue HL 5-May-2005
The claimant said that the widows’ bereavement tax allowance available to a wife surviving her husband should be available to a man also if it was not to be discriminatory.
Held: Similar claims had been taken before the Human Rights Act to the . .
Cited – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
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. . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another FD 12-Apr-2006
The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
See Also – Smith And Grady v United Kingdom (Article 41) ECHR 25-Jul-2000
. .
Cited – Pearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
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.
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.165747
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No separate issue under Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
36534/97, [2002] ECHR 593
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.174281
ECHR Judgment : Right to life : Second Section
69829/11, [2021] ECHR 111
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.658617
ECHR Judgment : Right to life : Fifth Section Committee
29361/18, [2021] ECHR 155
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.658857
ECHR Judgment : Right to a fair trial : Second Section Committee
16000/10, [2021] ECHR 145
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.658592
ECHR Judgment : Fifth Section Committee
53192/18, [2021] ECHR 165
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.658861
ECHR Judgment : Fifth Section Committee
41602/19, [2021] ECHR 167
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.658864
F and M were members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect. H transgendered, a process utterly unacceptable within the sect. Any continued association with the children would severely risk their ostracism, and at first F did not seek contact, but on his application limited indirect contact was ordered.
Held: Appeal allowed The Judge had not engaged sufficiently with the complex interplay of Article 9: the right to manifest one’s religion; Article 14: prohibition of discrimination; and the reach and scope of the Equality Act 2010. The matter was remitted for further consideration.
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division
[2017] EWCA Civ 2164, [2018] 2 FLR 800, [2018] WLR(D) 165, [2018] 4 WLR 60, [2018] 3 All ER 316, [2018] 2 FCR 559
England and Wales
Appeal from – J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) FC 30-Jan-2017
F had left the family all ultra orthodox Jews, to identify and live as a woman, an action straightforwardly forbidden within the sect. F had abandoned contact with the children but now sought to re-instate at first indirect but then full contact. M, . .
At CA – A (Children) (Contact: Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender Parent) FC 20-Jan-2020
M and F, members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect, had five children. F transgendered and sought and was granted an order for restricted indirect contact. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.601852