Category: Human Rights

Regina v Loveridge, Regina v Lee; Regina v Loveridge: CACD 11 Apr 2001

The police took secret videos of defendants whilst in the cells at the local Magistrates Court. The prosecution later sought to use the videos in identifying the defendants as participants in another crime. The filming was both unlawful under the Act, and an improper invasion of their privacy. The making of a video was included within the taking of a photograph under the Act. The filming was a breach of the defendants’ article 8 human rights. Nevertheless, the infringement did not affect the fairness of the eventual proceedings, and accordingly the evidence was properly admitted, and the convictions stood.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Douglas Brown, Astill JJ

Citations:

Times 03-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 973

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1925 41, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Loveridge and Others v Regina CACD 11-Apr-2001
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.88546

OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Nov 2011

Admissibility

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 2087, 48407/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2009
Statement of Facts . .
See Also – OBG Ltd OBG (Plant and Transport Hire) Ltd v Raymond International Ltd; OBG Ltd v Allen CA 9-Feb-2005
The defendants had wrongfully appointed receivers of the claimant, who then came into the business and terminated contracts undertaken by the business. The claimant asserted that their actions amounted to a wrongful interference in their contracts . .
See Also – OBG Ltd and Another v Allan and others CA 21-Feb-2005
The Court reduced the amount of damages owed to the applicants to GBP 244,000 plus interest. . .
At HL – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Insolvency

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.471977

Wallishauser v Austria (1): ECHR 17 Jul 2012

Citations:

156/04 – CLIN, [2012] ECHR 1994

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Wallishauser v Austria ECHR 17-Jul-2012
The applicant alleged that she did not have access to court in connection with her claim for salary payments arising out of her employment contract with the embassy of the United States of America in Vienna. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.466990

OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 13 Nov 2009

Statement of Facts

Citations:

48407/07

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – OBG Ltd OBG (Plant and Transport Hire) Ltd v Raymond International Ltd; OBG Ltd v Allen CA 9-Feb-2005
The defendants had wrongfully appointed receivers of the claimant, who then came into the business and terminated contracts undertaken by the business. The claimant asserted that their actions amounted to a wrongful interference in their contracts . .
See Also – OBG Ltd and Another v Allan and others CA 21-Feb-2005
The Court reduced the amount of damages owed to the applicants to GBP 244,000 plus interest. . .
Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .

Cited by:

See Also – OBG Ltd And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-2011
Admissibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Insolvency

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.383976

Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz: CA 1 Jul 2004

The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the reasonableness of making a possession order, and in situations where it was enforcing a possession oder, whether it had a discretion, and how that discretion should be enforced. It was necessary to examine both whether there was an actual subjective view that a tenant was a nuisance and also whether that view was objectively justified. In each case the authority had met these requirements, and the appeals against the possession orders were dismissed. The court approved the definition of health as being ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 834, Times 27-Jul-2004, [2004] HLR 878, [2005] 1 WLR 2775, [2004] 4 All ER 21, [2005] L and TR 13, [2005] BLGR 282, (2005) 83 BMLR 175

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 Sch2 Gr5, Disability Discrimination Act 1995 22, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Mason EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability.
Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to . .
Cited – A Power v Panasonic UK Ltd EAT 17-Sep-2002
EAT The tribunal had held that the applicant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because only of an addiction to alcohol. This was not to be treated as an impairment. She also suffered from . .
Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Cited – Morgan v Staffordshire University EAT 11-Dec-2001
The EAT gave guidance on the approach to be adopted in cases where a mental impairment is alleged by a complainant. After referring to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act: ‘Accordingly, in general there will be three or possibly four routes to . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Cited – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Cited – Damon Rose v Raymond Bouchet ScSf 19-May-1999
When applying the test within the section, there is a need for the alleged discriminator to show that it was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for him to hold the opinion in question: ‘In my opinion, that part of the test requires an . .
Cited – Ashworth v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2004
The responsibility of the state under article 8(1) may be engaged where an applicant is directly and seriously affected by noise pollution, even where the nuisance emanated from the activities of private individuals. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Applied – Richmond Court (Swansea) Ltd v Williams CA 14-Dec-2006
Section 24 of the 1995 Act requires the court ‘(i) to identify the treatment of the disabled person that is alleged to constitute discrimination, (ii) to identify the reason for that treatment, (iii) to determine whether the reason relates to the . .
Cited – S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission CA 18-Mar-2008
The court considered the relationship between the two Acts. The assured tenant had fallen into arrears, and was subject to an order for possession. He claimed that his disability required the court not to make an order for possession against her, . .
Cited – S v Floyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission CA 18-Mar-2008
The court considered the relationship between the two Acts. The assured tenant had fallen into arrears, and was subject to an order for possession. He claimed that his disability required the court not to make an order for possession against her, . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.198480

Alseran and Others v Ministry of Defence: QBD 14 Dec 2017

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3289 (QB), [2018] 3 WLR 95, [2017] WLR(D) 837

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) Regulations 2011, Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Amendment) Regulations 2015, Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Right Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Armed Forces, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.602132

Six Continents Ltd v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue: ChD 2 Feb 2016

Challenge to lawfulness of a tax imposed on restitutions of tax made by HMRC. The claimant sought leave to amend their particulars.
Held: None of the amendments had any realistic prospect of success and permission was refused.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 169 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 38, Corporation Tax Act 2010 Part C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax, Human Rights

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.559428

Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Georgia and Others v Georgia (Dec): ECHR 21 Apr 2015

ECHR Article 37-1
Striking out applications
State’s unilateral declaration recognising violation of applicants’ rights and awarding compensation: struck out
Facts – The applicants were two religious groups and six individuals. In 2002 the two applicant groups’ enrolment in the national register of associations was annulled as they could not be classified as a private-law entity under the applicable law then in force. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The domestic law was subsequently amended so as to allow religious groups to register as legal entities of public law. While the second applicant group was re-registered as an association in 2003, the first applicant did not apply for re-registration.
In 2014, in the course of the proceedings before the European Court, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration, recognising the violation of Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention in respect of the first two applicant religious groups and proposing to pay them EUR 1,500 each in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants refused the proposal as they considered the award offered inadequate.
Law – Article 37-1 (c): In previous cases concerning the registration of religious organisations, the Court had found that either by denying registration to various religious groups or by annulling their registration, the authorities had interfered with the applicant organisations’ right to freedom of religion and association, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention read in light of Article 9. In view of that finding, the Court had not considered it necessary to examine the same facts from the standpoint of Article 14 and found Article 10 complaints to be redundant.
In the present case the Government had explicitly accepted that the annulment of the applicant organisations’ registration was in breach of Articles 9 and 11 and the respondent State had amended its law to fill in the legislative gap concerning the legal status of religious groups. Moreover, having regard to the Court’s relevant case-law, the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention did not merit a separate examination. Therefore, in view of the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto did not require the Court to continue the examination of the application.
As to the applicants’ objection that the unilateral declaration had been submitted outside the friendly settlement procedure, there were exceptional circumstances justifying the Court, according to Rule 62A – 2 of the Rules of Court, to consider the unilateral declaration in the absence of prior friendly settlement negotiations.
Conclusion: struck out (unanimously).
(See also Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], 26307/95, 8 April 2004; WAZA Spolka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), 28953/03, 18 September 2007; see also the Factsheet on Freedom of religion)

Citations:

72874/01 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 541

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 37-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.547586

SS And Others v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 21 Apr 2015

ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Alleged discrimination in entitlement to social security benefits of prisoners in psychiatric care compared to other persons detained for psychiatric treatment: inadmissible
Facts – Under the relevant domestic legislation prisoners were not entitled to social security benefits while serving a prison sentence, including during any periods they were required to spend in psychiatric hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983. Conversely, persons not sentenced to a term of imprisonment but who were detained for psychiatric treatment either as civil patients under section 3 of the 1983 Act or as an alternative to prison under section 37 of the Act (‘section 37 patients’) retained their entitlement to benefits.
The applicants were all convicted and sentenced prisoners who had served, or were serving, part of their sentences in psychiatric hospitals under the relevant provisions of the 1983 Act. In their application to the European Court, they complained that denying them the social security benefits that were paid to other patients being treated under the Act was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: It was undisputed that social security benefits fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the status of prisoner was covered by the term ‘other status’ in Article 14. Article 14 was thus applicable.
(a) Analogous position: The Court reiterated that prisoners did not forfeit their Convention rights in prison, although the manner and extent to which they could enjoy them would inevitably be influenced by the context. Whether or not a prisoner could, for the purposes of Article 14, claim to be in an analogous position to other categories of the population depended on the subject-matter of the complaint. Although the applicants had asserted that the appropriate comparator group in their case was other detained patients, the Court considered that in reality the applicants had significant elements in common both with other patients and other prisoners. While their stay in hospital undoubtedly served a curative purpose, and not a punitive one, as a matter of domestic law they remained under a sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, even if it was accepted that the applicants were in all other respects under the same legal regime as section 37 patients, the difference between the two groups in terms of criminal-law status could not be regarded as insignificant or irrelevant. Although this did not preclude a comparison with section 37, the applicants’ status as prisoners was ‘very relevant’ to the assessment of compliance with the other requirements of Article 14.
(b) Objective and reasonable justification: The Court accepted as being within the respondent State’s broad margin of appreciation, both as a matter of penal and social policy, the decision to apply a general rule disqualifying convicted prisoners from social security benefits. It followed that the aim of the relevant regulations, which was to apply this exclusionary rule consistently and to correct anomalies, could not be said to be manifestly without reasonable foundation. Fully assimilating the categories of serving prisoners and prisoners transferred to a psychiatric hospital for the purposes of social security could not be said to be lacking in justification, but instead fell within the range of permissible choices open to the domestic authorities.
Nor did the Court discern any failure to respect the requirement of proportionality. The exclusion from entitlement to social security benefits was no broader than necessary, being coterminous with the sentence of imprisonment. In the case of a determinate sentence, those detained beyond what would normally have been the date of release had their entitlements restored, placing them on the same footing as other detained patients. Until such time, the applicants’ essential needs, material and medical, were met in any event and they received an allowance to meet their incidental expenses. No different analysis was called for in respect of the two applicants subject to a life sentence who had already served the minimum term imposed on them.
Accordingly, the difference in treatment complained of did not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also Shelley v. the United Kingdom, 23800/06, 4 January 2008, Information Note 104; Clift v. the United Kingdom, 7205/07, 13 July 2010, Information Note 132; and Stummer v. Austria [GC], 37452/02, 7 July 2011, Information Note 143)

Citations:

40356/10 54466/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 520, 54466/10 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 542, 40356/10

Links:

Bailii, Bailii (Summary)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons, Benefits

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.547584

Piper v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Apr 2015

ECHR Article 41
Just satisfaction
Absence of award in respect of non-pecuniary damage where delays in confiscation proceedings were mainly attributable to applicant
Facts – In June 2001 the applicant was found guilty of drug-trafficking offences and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment (he was released in 2006). By virtue of his conviction he became liable to confiscation of assets under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. The compensation proceedings ended with a judgment of the Court of Appeal in March 2010 upholding a confiscation order at first instance in which the total amount of the applicant’s benefit from criminal conduct was assessed at over 1,800,000 pounds sterling. In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained of the length of the confiscation proceedings (Article 6 – 1 of the Convention).
Law – Article 6 – 1: The period to be taken into account commenced with the applicant’s arrest in January 1999 and ended with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in March 2010 (approximately eleven years, two months). Although the applicant had pursued a series of fruitless appeals, there had also been delays in the case attributable to the State authorities totalling approximately three years. Given, in particular, what had been at stake for the applicant, and notwithstanding the fact that he was himself responsible for the majority of the overall delay, the Court found that the proceedings had not been completed within a reasonable time.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: As regards the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepted that, although not fully identified, some of the ‘strain’ experienced by the applicant during the course of the confiscation proceedings had inextricably been linked to the issue of delay. However, that ‘very limited uncertainty’ (in the words of the Court of Appeal) could not be taken to have caused the applicant substantial prejudice at all. Furthermore, it was far from the totality of the extraordinary length of the proceedings that had been found to be attributable to the respondent State. On the contrary, it was the applicant himself who, after being convicted of a serious offence of drug-trafficking involving potentially enormous rewards for himself but much damage to society, was largely responsible for preventing the proceedings aimed at confiscating his assets being brought to a timely close. As the national judges and the Court of Appeal in particular had pointed out, the applicant had ‘deployed every legal stratagem to delay the confiscation process’ and succeeded in his endeavour. Faced with various objections and requirements from the applicant’s legal team, the judge in the confiscation proceedings had sought to strike a balance between the need to prevent delay in the proceedings and the importance of allowing the applicant adequate time to prepare and mount his defence.
Having regard to these particular circumstances, the Court did not consider it ‘necessary’, in the terms of Article 41 of the Convention, to afford the applicant any financial compensation and held that the finding of a violation of Article 6 – 1 by reason of the delay in the proceedings attributable to the respondent State in itself constituted adequate just satisfaction for the purposes of the Convention.

Citations:

44547/10 (Legal Summary), [2015] ECHR 480

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Drug Trafficking Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.546890

In re DM: FD 29 Sep 2014

Application made by the Council, pursuing the twin jurisdictional routes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the invocation of the inherent jurisdictional powers of the High Court seeking declaratory relief sanctioning a birth plan in respect of a vulnerable adult.

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3119 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Family, Human Rights

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.537738

Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board, Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 14 Mar 2011

S was serving a term of life imprisonment. After serving the tariff, his detention should have been reviewed. After several serious delays, and a decision that he should instead be transferred to open conditions, he brought proceedings for judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the decision taken by the Parole Board following a hearing, and also the delay in holding that hearing.
Held: Mitting J rejected the challenge in respect of the lawfulness of the decision. However:
(1) Mr Sturnham’s rights under article 5(4) were breached in that the hearing before the Board did not take place until approximately six months had elapsed from the date on which it should have taken place. That delay resulted from the delay in the delivery of the dossier to the Board.
(2) There was no prospect that Mr Sturnham’s release would have been ordered if the hearing had taken place six months earlier.
(3) It was more likely than not that the Board would have directed Mr Sturnham’s transfer to open conditions six months earlier than occurred.
(4) Such a transfer would not necessarily have resulted in his earlier release. Nor would it have done so to a lower standard of probability.
(5) Mr Sturnham had been caused anxiety and distress by the delay.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 938 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 28, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Citing:

Applied – Guntrip, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 9-Dec-2010
The claimant prisoner should have had his detention reviewed after serving the tariff part of his sentence. He sought damages for the delay. The first hearing before the Board, following the expiry of the tariff, had not taken place until about two . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sturnham v Secretary of State for Justice CA 23-Feb-2012
The claimant life sentence prisoner had inter alia been detained after the expiry of his tarriff pending a review of whether his continued detention was required for public protection. That review had been delayed, and the claimant was awarded . .
At first Instance – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
At first instance – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434867

Asito v Moldova: ECHR 8 Nov 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 (one aspect); No violation of Art. 6-1 (other aspect); Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – reserved; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

40663/98, [2007] ECHR 324

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.234771

Radunovic And Others v Montenegro: ECHR 25 Oct 2016

Citations:

45197/13 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)), [2016] ECHR 936

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.570495

Sabeh El Leil v France: ECHR 1 Jul 2015

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Citations:

34869/05, [2015] ECHR 643

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Sabeh El Leil v France ECHR 29-Jun-2011
Grand Chamber – The applicant alleged that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court as a result of the immunity from jurisdiction upheld by the domestic courts.
This was a claim for unfair dismissal, brought before the French . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.549971

Benkharbouche and Another v Embassy of The Republic of Sudan: CA 5 Feb 2015

The claimant had been an employee of a foreign diplomatic mission. He said that he was not debarred by the 1978 Act from bringing claims for unfair dismissal and breach of working time regulations, saying that any exemption would infringe his human rights.
Held: (i) where there is a breach of a right afforded under EU law, article 47 of the Charter is engaged; (ii) the right to an effective remedy for breach of EU law rights provided for by article 47 embodies a general principle of EU law; (iii) (subject to exceptions which have no application in the present case) that general principle has horizontal effect; (iv) in so far as a provision of national law conflicts with the requirement for an effective remedy in article 47, the domestic courts can and must disapply the conflicting provision; and (v) the only exception to (iv) is that the court may be required to apply a conflicting domestic provision where the court would otherwise have to redesign the fabric of the legislative scheme.’
It was ‘questionable’ whether article 11 of the draft articles was in fact a definitive statement of customary international law in embassy employment disputes.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Arden, Lloyd Jones LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 33, [2016] QB 347, [2015] 3 WLR 301, [2015] IRLR 301, [2016] 1 All ER 816, [2015] 2 CMLR 20, [2015] WLR(D) 83, [2015] HRLR 3, [2015] ICR 793

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

State Immunity Act 1978, European Convention on Human Rights 6, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 47

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT – Benkharbouche v Embassy of The Republic of Sudan (Jurisdictional Points : State Immunity) EAT 4-Oct-2013
EAT STATE IMMUNITY
A cook at the Sudanese embassy, and a member of the domestic staff of the Libyan embassy, both made claims arising out of their employment. They were met with pleas of State Immunity, . .

Cited by:

Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
At CA – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, European, Human Rights, International

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.542260

Wallishauser v Austria (No 2): ECHR 20 Jun 2013

Citations:

14497/06 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 565

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.510991

Sabeh El Leil v France: ECHR 29 Jun 2011

Grand Chamber – The applicant alleged that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court as a result of the immunity from jurisdiction upheld by the domestic courts.
This was a claim for unfair dismissal, brought before the French courts by the head of the accounts department of the Kuwaiti embassy in Paris. The final decision of the French courts was to bar the claim on grounds of state immunity and was handed down after the adoption of the United Nations Convention.
Held: The Court reiterated the principle on which the Strasbourg court had always held article 6 to be engaged in such cases, and summarised the case law: ‘Therefore, in cases where the application of the rule of state immunity from jurisdiction restricts the exercise of the right of access to a court, the Court must ascertain whether the circumstances of the case justified such restriction.
The Court further reiterates that such limitation must pursue a legitimate aim and that state immunity was developed in international law out of the principle par in parem non habet imperium, by virtue of which one state could not be subject to the jurisdiction of another. It has taken the view that the grant of immunity to a state in civil proceedings pursues the legitimate aim of complying with international law to promote comity and good relations between states through the respect of another state’s sovereignty.’

Judges:

Nicolas Bratza, P

Citations:

34869/05, [2011] ECHR 1055, [2011] IRLR 781, (2012) 54 EHRR 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

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 . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
Cited – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the compatibility of provisions in the 1978 Act with the human rights of the appellant. The claimants, Moroccan nationals were employed as domestic staff in embassies in London. They alleged both race discrimination and . .
Cited – Sabeh El Leil v France ECHR 1-Jul-2015
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.441480

Wallishauser v Austria: ECHR 17 Jul 2012

The applicant alleged that she did not have access to court in connection with her claim for salary payments arising out of her employment contract with the embassy of the United States of America in Vienna.

Judges:

Nina Vajic, President

Citations:

156/04, [2012] ECHR 1600

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Wallishauser v Austria (1) ECHR 17-Jul-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.462937

Eweida And Chaplin v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Apr 2011

Statement of Facts and questions to the parties

Citations:

48420/10, [2011] ECHR 738

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

At CA – Eweida v British Airways Plc CA 12-Feb-2010
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly . .
At EAT – Eweida v British Airways Plc EAT 20-Nov-2008
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The claimant was a Christian who objected to BA’s policy of requiring jewellery to be worn concealed by the uniform. There were exceptions for those whose religions . .
At CA (Costs) – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .

Cited by:

Statement of Facts – 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 . .
Statement of Facts – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
ECHR Article 9-1
Manifest religion or belief
Disciplinary measures against employees for wearing religious symbols (cross) at work or refusing to perform duties they considered incompatible with their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433639

Puri, Regina (on The Application of) v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: Admn 15 Apr 2011

The claimant, a consultant urologist complained that the manner of his dismissal by the defendant for alleged misconduct did not accord with his human rights.
Held: A person’s right to practise his profession was a civil right for the purposes of article 6. It was not in dispute but that a person’s right to practise his profession was a civil right for the purpose of Article 6. This is not the same as that person’s right to remain in his current employment.

Judges:

Blair J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 970 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

Cited – Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust QBD 1-Aug-2011
The claimant who had been dismissed by the defendant, asked the court to find that the defendant had failed to meet its contractual obligations as to the procedure to be followed, and that therefore the court declare the dismissal void.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Human Rights

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.432853

H and L v A City Council: CA 14 Apr 2011

The court was asked when and how it is proper for a local authority to make disclosure to someone’s commercial contacts of the fact that he is a convicted sex offender.
Held: Where human rights are involved, the appropriate standard of review which the court must adopt is not the Wednesbury test of irrationality but the more intense Daly standard.

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 403

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Human Rights, Administrative

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432813

Upton v United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Apr 2006

Admissibility – the claimant said that he had been disinherited from his grandfather’s will, being illegitimate. The will made in 1930 was in favour of the testator’s children and grandchildren. The applicant’s father was the testator’s eldest son, and Tim’s mother was the wife of the testator’s youngest son. She died not long after Tim was born, and he was then adopted by his father in 1955.

Judges:

J. Casadevall, P

Citations:

29800/04, [2006] ECHR 1203, 47 EHRR SE24, (2008) 47 EHRR SE24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

At Admn – Upton v National Westminster Bank Plc and others CA 14-Nov-2005
The claimant said that he had been disinherited from his grandfather’s will being illegitimate. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Re Erskine 1948 Trust ChD 29-Mar-2012
The trust was created in 1948, and provided gifts over, which had now failed. The court considered the construction of the term ‘stautory next of kin’. The possible beneficiaries claimed through being adopted, arguing that at the date of the last . .
Cited – Re Erskine 1948 Trust ChD 29-Mar-2012
The trust was created in 1948, and provided gifts over, which had now failed. The court considered the construction of the term ‘stautory next of kin’. The possible beneficiaries claimed through being adopted, arguing that at the date of the last . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Wills and Probate

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432711

Secretary of State for The Foreign Office and Commonwealth Affairs v Maftah: CA 13 Apr 2011

The Secretary of State appealed against an order granting judicial review of his decision to place the claimants on a list of those associated with terrorist organisations. They had been placed on the list without being given opportunity to make representations, thus, they said, infringing their human rights.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
Sedley LJ said: ‘A public law challenge in England and Wales does not depend on the existence and invasion of a positive right, though it may well involve these: it depends only on the claimant’s having a sufficient interest in an arguable abuse of power. This both claimants clearly have. But while their Convention rights will, if they succeed, be vindicated, the challenge to the state’s acts does not turn on this. It turns on the propriety of the acts and omissions which have brought about the interference with their interests and rights.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 350, [2012] 2 WLR 251, [2012] QB 477

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432727

Saman v Turkey: ECHR 5 Apr 2011

The applicant, accused of being a member of an illegal organisation and faced a heavy penalty, had an insufficient knowledge of Turkish and was without the help of an interpreter.
Held: She could not reasonably have appreciated the consequences of accepting to be questioned without the assistance of a lawyer in a criminal case concerning the investigation of particularly grave offences.

Citations:

35292/05, [2011] ECHR 593

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431815