Category: Human Rights

Alexander v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Jun 2015

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention following the expiry of his tariff was unlawful because the Parole Board had refused to recommend his release on the ground that he had not yet completed a specific rehabilitative course, despite the fact that he was unable to access that course.

Citations:

54119/10 – Committee Judgment, [2015] ECHR 633

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.549940

Merchant International Company Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kompaniia Naftogaz: CA 29 Feb 2012

The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim which was to seek to enforce a judgment obtained in Kiev and in the Ukraine Supreme Court.
Held: It had been a proper exercise of the discretion under CPR r 13.3 to refuse to set aside the default judgment. A court in England had jurisdiction to consider whether a judgment obtained in a foreign Convention state was obtained in breach of the Human Rights Convention provided there was clear evidence. Otherwise there is a strong presumption that the procedures of a Convention state complied with it. Here, the judgment was obtained in default had been obtained on a debt established in a foreign final judgment of a Convention state, A later judgment setting aside the original judgment had been made in open breach of article 6. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Hooper, Toulson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 196, [2012] CP Rep 25, [2012] 1 WLR 3036, [2012] 1 CLC 396, [2012] WLR(D) 51, [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 1

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Civil Procedure Rules 13.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Litigation Practice, Human Rights, International

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451704

Sanade and Others (British Children – Zambrano – Dereci): UTIAC 7 Feb 2012

Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 provides that where a person is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more, he must be deported unless he falls within one of the statutory exceptions.
Article 8 provides one such exception but there is no justification for saying that it will only be in exceptional circumstances that removal will violate the family’s protected Article 8 rights or that the claim itself must be exceptional: the issue is whether the State can justify the interference as necessary, that is say a proportionate and fair balance in pursuit of a legitimate aim.
The more serious the offending, the stronger is the case for deportation, but Parliament has not stated that every offence serious enough to merit a penalty of twelve months or more imprisonment makes interference with human rights proportionate.
ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4 considered in what circumstances it was permissible to remove or deport a non-citizen parent where the effect would be that a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom would also have to leave. The fact the children are British was a strong pointer to the fact that their future lies in the United Kingdom.
Case C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano , BAILII: [2011] EUECJ C-34/09, now makes it clear that where the child or indeed the remaining spouse is a British citizen and therefore a citizen of the European Union, as a matter of EU law it is not possible to require the family as a unit to relocate outside of the European Union or for the Secretary of State to submit that it would be reasonable for them to do so.
Where in the context of Article 8 one parent (‘the remaining parent’) of a British citizen child is also a British citizen (or cannot be removed as a family member or in their own right), the removal of the other parent does not mean that either the child or the remaining parent will be required to leave, thereby infringing the Zambrano principle, see C-256/11 Murat Dereci, BAILII: [2011] EUECJ C-256/11. The critical question is whether the child is dependent on the parent being removed for the exercise of his Union right of residence and whether removal of that parent will deprive the child of the effective exercise of residence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the Union.
Where the claimant’s conduct is persistent and/or serious the interference with family life may be justified even it involves the separation of the claimant from his family who reasonably wish to continue living in the United Kingdom, Lee v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 348.
The principles for evaluating Article 8 claims in criminal deportation cases are to be found in the Strasbourg jurisprudence of Boultif v Switzerland (no.54273/00) [2001] ECHR 479; Uner v Netherlands (no 46410/99) [2006] ECHR 873 and Maslov v Austria (no. 1638/03) [2008] ECHR 546.
In cases of the importation and supply of significant quantities of Class A drugs, Strasbourg has recognised why states show great severity to such foreign offenders but there is no special principle in cases of importation or supply of drugs. Deportation must always be proportionate.

Judges:

Blake P

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 48 (IAC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

UK Borders Act 2007 32, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ruiz Zambrano (European Citizenship) ECJ 30-Sep-2010
ECJ Opinion – Articles 18, 20 and 21 TFEU – Fundamental rights as general principles of European Union law – Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – European citizenship – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451470

Moore v British Waterways Board: ChD 10 Feb 2012

The claimant said that the defendant did not have the powers it claimed in serving notices requiring him to remove boats from a section of the Grand Union Canal.
Held: The respondent did have the power under section 8 of the 1983 Act. As a riparian owner, but having no interest in the bed of the canal, at common law there was no positive riparian right to moor vessels permanently.

Judges:

Hildyard J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 182 (Ch), [2012] 1 WLR 3289

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Waterways Act 1983, Grand Junction Canal Act 1793

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board ChD 12-Mar-2009
. .
See Also – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 5-Feb-2010
The claimant sought the right to moor his houseboats on the Grand Union Canal, a waterway regulated by the defendant who issued licences. The claimant said that rights granted under the 1793 Act survived the new scheme. The defendant said that a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Moore v British Waterways Board CA 14-Feb-2013
The claimant resisted an attempt by the respondent to enforce the removal of his four vessels on a stretch of the Grand Union Canal at Brentford. He was the riparian owner, but did not own any part of the bed.
Held: His appeal was allowed. . .
Cited – Ravenscroft v Canal and River Trust ChD 14-Sep-2016
Special Circumstances to appoint McKenzie Friend
An application was made to have a nominated person appointed as McKenzie friend and as advocate for the claimant. The claimant’s narrow boat had been seized by the defendant for non payment of licence fees and for not having a Pleasure Boat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451435

Von Hannover v Germany (no. 2): ECHR 7 Feb 2012

(Grand Chamber) The applicants alleged that the refusal by the German courts to grant an injunction against any further publication of photos of them infringed their right to respect for their private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.

Judges:

Bratza P

Citations:

[2012] ECHR 228, 40660/08, 60641/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451405

Lautsi v Italy: ECHR 18 Mar 2011

(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that the presence in all state schoolrooms of a crucifix on the wall infringed the principle of secularism. The routine presence in state school classrooms of a crucifix, which was not used for worship, religious instruction or as an expression of allegiance, was held not to contravene Article 19. Though the cross is a universally-recognised Christian symbol and a ‘self-evident manifestation’ of Christian faith. It was a passive and traditional national symbol in Italian state schools.
In deciding to keep crucifixes in the classrooms of the State school attended by the first applicant’s children, the authorities acted within the limits of the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State in the context of its obligation to respect, in the exercise of the functions it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Judges:

Jean-Paul Costa, P

Citations:

[2011] Eq LR 633, [2011] ECHR 2412, (2012) 54 EHRR 3, [2011] ELR 176, 30 BHRC 429

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3 19

Citing:

See Also – Lautsi v Italy ECHR 3-Nov-2009
. .

Cited by:

Cited – National Secular Society and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Bideford Town Council Admn 10-Feb-2012
The claimant challenged the placing of a prayer on the agenda of the respondent’s meetings.
Held: The claim succeeded. The placing of such elements on the Agenda was outside the powers given to the Council, and the action was ultra vires: . .
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Cited – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
Cited – Barclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Education

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451407

Matky v Czech Republic: ECHR 10 Jul 2006

(French Text) Members of an environmental group sought access to the original project documents lodged with a government department. They wanted to compare the plans with revised plans which were currently the subject of an environmental assessment. The Ministry refused access to the documents. The group applied to the court, relying on article 10.
Held: The application was inadmissible: ‘It notes that the circumstances in the present case are to be clearly distinguished from those in cases relating to restrictions upon the freedom of the Press in which it has on many occasions recognised the existence of a right for the public to receive information . . The Court considers that article 10 of the Convention should not be interpreted as guaranteeing the absolute right to have access to all the technical details relating to the construction of a power station as, unlike information concerning its environmental impact, such data should not be of general public interest.’

Judges:

Lorenzen P

Citations:

19101/03

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
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

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451400

Pye v United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Nov 2006

Press announcement – Grand Chamber hearing

Citations:

44302/02, [2006] ECHR 941

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Admissibility – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jun-2004
Admissibility . .
First Hearing – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451376

MA and Others v Finland: ECHR 10 Jun 2003

(Admissibility) Legislation which is retroactive is not necessarily incompatible with A1P1, retrospective legislation is not as such prohibited by A1P1.

Judges:

Sis Nicolas Bratza

Citations:

(2003) 37 EHRR CD 210, [2003] ECHR 712

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A1P1

Cited by:

Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451402

MacDonald v Ministry of Defence: EAT 19 Sep 2000

The appellant, a homosexual, appealed against rejection of his claims for sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

Judges:

Lotd Johnston

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 0121 – 00 – 1909, [2001] ICR 1, [2001] Emp LR 105, [2001] HRLR 5, [2000] IRLR 748, [2001] 1 All ER 620

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC, Sex Discrimination Act 1975 86

Employment, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451395

Lord Carlile and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Mar 2012

The claimant had invited an Iranian dissident to speak in Parliament, and now challenged the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse her a visa on the basis that her exclusion was not conducive to the public good. She was a member of an organisation which had in the past supported terrorism, and had first been excluded in 1997, but then the proscription had been quashed by the POAC.
Held: ‘It was a sad irony that, on the day following the tragic death of Marie Colvin, an intrepid journalist seeking to convey the truth of atrocities in Syria, this Court heard a case in which the Home Secretary seeks to uphold a restriction on the right of members of the Houses of Parliament to receive in the Palace of Westminster information from and the opinions of a prominent Iranian dissident whose country is an ally of the Syrian government. From the beginning, my heart has been with the Claimants, and I would dearly have liked to find in their favour. Reluctantly, however, I have concluded that it would be wrong to do so.
The Secretary of State is accountable for her decisions legally and politically. In my judgment, she has shown that her decisions are lawful. Her political accountability, for the wisdom or otherwise of her decisions, is to Parliament.’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton LJ, Underhill J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 617 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 3, European Convention on Human Rights 9 10

Citing:

See Also – Lord Alton of Liverpool and Others v Secretary of Dtate for the Home Department POAC 30-Nov-2007
The Mujaheddin-e-Khalq had been proscribed under the 2000 Act by the respondent. It now appealed against such proscription.
Held: The organisation had in the past used terrorist methods, but had repeatedly now renounced the use of violence. . .
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence CA 5-Feb-2009
The claimant sought judicial review to test the validity of the bye-laws which prohibited them from camping on public land to support their demonstration.
Held: The bye-laws violated the claimant’s right to freedom of assembly and of . .
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 . .
Cited – Vogt v Germany ECHR 1-Nov-1995
The German courts construed a teacher’s duty of loyalty as absolute and owed equally by every civil servant, regardless of his or her function and rank under national law. Every civil servant, whatever his or her own opinion on the matter, must . .
Cited – Ahmed And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Sep-1998
The restriction on local government officers and other against some political activities were not an infringement of their human rights and fell within the requirements for free expression and for free elections
‘The Court recalls that in its . .
Cited – Naik, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent to revoke his entry visa, saying ‘he was to be excluded ‘for engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making statements that attempt to justify terrorist activity and fostering hatred’.’
Cited – Matalulu v Director of Public Prosecutions 2003
(Supreme Court of Fiji) The court considered the nature of judicial control (if any) over decisions by authorities to commence prosecutions and said: ‘the polycentric character of official decision-making in such matters including policy and public . .
Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Cited – Zatuliveter v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 29-Sep-2011
SIAC Deportation – The Hearing of An Application By The Appellant – Refused – the Court or Commission can make findings of primary facts from which it can decide the principal issue in controversy – recusal of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lord Carlile of Berriew and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-Mar-2013
The applicants complained of the refusal of a visitors permit by the respondent to an eminent Iranian dissident.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Although the decision was an interference in the human rights of the applicants, that . .
At Administrative Court – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452181

Tabbakh v United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 2012

In 2000 the applicant fled Syria. In November 2001 he arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed political asylum. It was accepted that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Syria and in July 2005 he was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee.
On 18 December 2007 the applicant was arrested at his home. Following a search of the applicant and his home, police officers found a plastic bag containing three plastic bottles, each containing a liquid and a solid mixture, a handwritten document in Arabic with diagrams, two bags of fertilizer pellets, two bags containing small pieces of aluminium foil, an MP3 audio player, a desktop computer and a USB memory stick. An analytical chemist confirmed that the contents of the bottles were flammable. Although incapable of causing an explosion, had the applicant used higher grade ingredients, he might have been able to construct a viable bomb. A translation of the Arabic document appeared to give instructions on the construction of an improvised explosive device. The audio player and computer devices were found to contain some Islamist material of an extremist nature.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

40945/09, [2012] ECHR 407

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Tabbakh, Regina v CACD 3-Mar-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for preparing for terrorist offences, saying that the judge should not have allowed inferences to be drawn from from his decision not to give evidence. He had brought evidence that his physical or mental . .
See Also – Regina v Tabbakh CACD 2009
The defendant applied for leave to appeal against his sentence after conviction for an offence under section 5 of the 2006 Act.
Held: The Court was not prepared to lay down any general range for s.5 offences. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Tabbakh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust and Another Admn 9-Aug-2013
The claimant challenged the attaching additional licence conditions on his release from prison. He is serving the non-custodial part of a seven year sentence imposed for an offence of preparing a terrorist act. He was released automatically on . .
See Also – Tabbakh, Regina (on The Application of) v Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust and Another CA 19-Jun-2014
The claimant sought judicial review of the conditions imposed on him on being released from prison under licence, saying that interfered with his Article 8 rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452043