ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) – Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
34642/97, [2005] ECHR 40
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Buzatu v Romania ECHR 1-Jun-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227656
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award.
38424/97, [2005] ECHR 4
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227667
Police had shot at the applicant’s car being driven through road blocks. The claimant was injured. After an administrative investigation seven police officers were prosecuted but acquitted.
Held: There had been striking omissions in the conduct of the investigation which had prevented the national court from making as full a finding of fact in the criminal trial as it might otherwise have done. Accordingly the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the incident and that there had been a violation of article 2: ‘The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the state’s general duty under Article 1 to ‘secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention’, requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving state agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. Since often, in practice, the true circumstances of the death in such cases are largely confined within the knowledge of state officials or authorities, the bringing of appropriate domestic proceedings, such as a criminal prosecution, disciplinary proceedings and proceedings for the exercise of remedies available to victims and their families, will be conditioned by an adequate official investigation, which must be independent and impartial. The same reasoning applies in the case under consideration, where the Court has found that the force used by the police against the applicant endangered his life.’
50385/99, (2004) 41 EHRR 1092, [2004] ECHR 694
Cited – JL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
Cited – Sarjantson v Humberside Police CA 18-Oct-2013
The claimant had been severely injured in an attack by a group of young men. He said that the defendant had failed in its duty to protect him and his family. He now appealed against the action being struck out.
Held: the judge’s interpretation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227682
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
38302/02, [2005] ECHR 77
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227632
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
69515/01, [2005] ECHR 9
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227669
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regard to the fairness of the proceedings, and under P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
34358/02, [2005] ECHR 89
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227616
The claimant, a French national wished to vote in a French overseas territory. Registration was refused because he had not been permanently resident for ten years. The local administration was concerned that ballots should reflect the will of the local population and should not be affected by mass voting by recent arrivals in the territory who did not have strong ties with it. The ten year residence requirement had been laid down ‘after a turbulent political and institutional history’ and had been instrumental in alleviating the ‘bloody conflict’.
Held: The restrictions imposed on the applicant’s right to vote were warranted. The court stated as general principles: ‘Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation, given that their legislation on elections varies from place to place and from time to time. The rules on granting the right to vote, reflecting the need to ensure both citizen participation and knowledge of the particular situation of the region in question, vary according to the historical and political factors peculiar to each state. The number of situations provided for in the legislation on elections in many member States of the Council of Europe shows the diversity of possible choice on the subject. However, none of these criteria should in principle be considered more valid than any other provided that it guarantees the expression of the will of the people through free, fair and regular elections. For the purposes of applying Art.3, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another.’ and ‘The State’s margin of appreciation, however, is not unlimited. It is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No.1 have been complied with. It has to satisfy itself that any such conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. In particular, such conditions must not thwart ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’.’
66289/01, [2005] ECHR 7, [2006] 42 EHRR 26
Human Rights
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227663
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings and under Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
28954/02, [2005] ECHR 17
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227670
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 regarding the first complaint; Violation of Art. 6-1 regarding the second complaint; Violation of Art. 8.
33695/96, [2005] ECHR 5
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227662
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award.
4672/02, [2004] ECHR 663
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227708
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regard to the fairness of the proceedings, and under P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
33523/02, [2005] ECHR 74
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227611
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality and lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court, and under Arts. 6-2 and 6-3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
31655/02, [2005] ECHR 53
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227598
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
69258/01, [2005] ECHR 49
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227596
The applicant complained of the delay by the Customs and Excise in enforcing a confiscation order against him of four years.
Held: The respondent had allowed almost four years to pass after the liability had been incurred without taking any steps to enforce the order. That deal did infringe the applicant’s human rights. The defendant argued that once the order had been made, the defendant became and remained under a continuing obligation to pay. The proceedings were akin to the final determination of a fine. Given that the applicant was left to worry as to his possible imprisonment, the delay was inexcusable. The Court reaffirmed the principle that article 6.1 applied throughout the entirety of criminal proceedings and found that confiscation proceedings were analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of imprisonment to be imposed.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that article 6.1 applied throughout the entirety of criminal proceedings and found that confiscation proceedings were analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of imprisonment to be imposed.
Times 11-Feb-2005, 53741/00, [2005] ECHR 45
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Cited – Welch v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Feb-1995
The applicant was convicted in 1988 of drug offences committed in 1986. The judge passed a sentence of imprisonment but imposed a confiscation order pursuant to an Act that came into force in l987.
Held: The concept of penalty in Article 7 was . .
Cited – Bullen and Soneji v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2009
The claimants said that the confiscation and money-laundering proceedings taken against them had taken too long, with delays of 43 months out of a total of 66 month case attributable to the state.
Held: The delay was too long. The applicants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227594
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
59477/00, [2005] ECHR 50
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227597
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 11; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award.
46626/99, [2005] ECHR 58
European Convention on Human Rights 11
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227590
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regard to the fairness of the proceedings, and under P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
33808/02, [2005] ECHR 90
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227614
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the non-execution; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings, and under Art. 13.
2577/02, [2005] ECHR 55
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227584
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regard to the fairness of the proceedings, and under P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
34366/02, [2005] ECHR 93
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227615
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to access to a court; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; No violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.
69315/01, [2005] ECHR 94
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227589
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality and under Art. 6-2; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
19247/02, [2005] ECHR 54
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227599
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 14+8; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Inadmissible under Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
18297/03, [2005] ECHR 57
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227601
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d.
10075/02, [2005] ECHR 80
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227588
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 as regard to the fairness of the proceedings, and under P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
33191/02, [2005] ECHR 84
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227613
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
46243/99, [2005] ECHR 48
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227595
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
51837/99, [2005] ECHR 44
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227593
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 as regard the lack of a fair hearing; Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of a denial of access to a court; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected.
39410/98, [2005] ECHR 56
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227604
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
37040/02, [2005] ECHR 59
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227600
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
64387/01, [2005] ECHR 96
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227610
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
35087/02, [2005] ECHR 123
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227562
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.
43883/02, [2005] ECHR 138
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227575
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
45658/99, [2005] ECHR 141
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227564
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
25964/02, [2005] ECHR 139
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227577
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
33194/02, [2005] ECHR 112
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227560
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
60534/00, [2005] ECHR 142
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227569
The court observed that: ‘the right to freedom of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society and, like the right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society.’ it is possible to distinguish between interferences which ‘encroach on the essence of the right’ and interferences which impact on the manner and form in which the rights are exercised.
An individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of a demonstration.
61821/00, [2005] ECHR 51
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Followed – Blum and others v Director of Public Prosecutions and others Admn 20-Dec-2006
. .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-Oct-2007
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment and unlawful detention by the respondent in his policing of a demonstration. They had been held within a police cordon in the streets for several hours to prevent the spread of . .
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 6-Mar-2008
The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227579
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected.
43402/02, [2005] ECHR 127
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227574
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
45203/99, [2005] ECHR 124
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227570
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
58141/00, [2005] ECHR 63
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227581
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies); Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality; Not necessary to examine under Art. 6-1 with regard to fairness; Not necessary to examine under Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award.
46845/99, [2005] ECHR 47
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227578
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award.
56363/00, [2005] ECHR 52
European Convention on Human Rights 3 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227582
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning access to investigation files; Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning length of proceedings; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
42270/98, [2005] ECHR 46
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227580
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-d; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
46848/99, [2005] ECHR 140
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227571
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.
7023/03, [2005] ECHR 134
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227576
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected.
41304/02, [2005] ECHR 133
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227573
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected.
36494/02, [2005] ECHR 137
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227572
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). The court considered the duties of a signatory state under article 2 when taking substantial military actions against insurgents.
57949/00, [2005] ECHR 129, 57947/00, 57948/00, (2005) 41 EHRR 39
European Convention on Human Rights 2
Human Rights
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227547
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award.
57372/00, [2005] ECHR 101
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227553
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expensives partial award – Convention proceedings.
50744/99, [2005] ECHR 310
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227380
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione materiae; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award.
52555/99, [2005] ECHR 107
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227551
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
5038/03, [2005] ECHR 250
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227453
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4 with regard to the first set of proceedings; No violation of Art. 5-4 with regard to the second set of proceedings; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.
55939/00, [2005] ECHR 104
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227537
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
9673/03, [2005] ECHR 252
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227457
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings; Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings; Inadmissible under P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
34339/02, [2005] ECHR 266
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227470
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award.
47148/99, [2005] ECHR 121
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227546
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 and P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
35839/97, [2005] ECHR 122
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227540
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – claim rejected.
46447/99, [2005] ECHR 126
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227541
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
59304/00, [2005] ECHR 130
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227543
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c with regard to four applicants; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (with regard to one applicant); Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient (with regard to four applicants); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award.
The applicant said that he had been unlawfully detained in prison for two days.
Held: He was awarded 5,000Eur.
Casadevall P
58927/00, (2005) 41 EHRR 23, 47676/99, 58923/00, [2005] ECHR 144, [2006] RA 384
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227476
Violation of P1-1. A confiscation order made by a Russian criminal court was unlawful and involved a violation of the applicant’s rights under A1P1. The husband was convicted of fraud. She was not herself charged with any criminal offence. After his conviction the court made a confiscation order in respect of her husband’s property and it included in the confiscation order a vehicle which the applicant maintained had been bought from money which she had borrowed and belonged to her. However, it failed to identify any legal basis justifying the confiscation.
C.L. Rozakis, P
58254/00, [2005] ECHR 179, [2011] ECHR 1684
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227501
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
16787/02, [2005] ECHR 330
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227400
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
The claimant was a prisoner serving a life sentence. He complained that the delays in considering the move towards his being detained in more open conditions, and the absence of any specific work programme for 22 months violated his right to a speedy determination of the lawfulness of his detention.
Held: The decisions about the conditions under which he was held were integral to the process of his eventually being considered for release. The delay was unreasonable. He was awarded 1460 Euros compensation.
59512/00, [2005] ECHR 407, [2010] ECHR 1891
European Convention on Human Rights 5-1
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227201
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 14+8; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
5263/03, [2005] ECHR 331
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227350
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
A number of the applicant’s meetings with his lawyer were supervised by a police official, and his letters to his lawyer were intercepted and used for graphological reports.
Held: ‘an accused’s right to communicate with his advocate out of the hearing of a third person is part of the basic requirements of a fair trial in a democratic society and follows from Article 6(3)(c) of the Convention. If a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without such surveillance, his assistance would lose much of its usefulness, whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see inter alia the Artico judgment of 13 May 1980, series A no.37, p.16, para.33).’
12629/87;13965/88, [1991] ECHR 54
Cited – Brennan v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Oct-2001
The applicant had complained that, after his arrest he had been refused adequate access to a lawyer. He had not been allowed to see his solicitor for two days, and only then in the presence of a police officer. No inferences had been drawn from his . .
Cited – Brown, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2015
The claimant, a patient hld at Rampton Hospital faced charges of attempted murder of two nurses. His lwayers had asked for the right to see their client in private, but eth Hospital objected, insisting on the presence of two nurses at all times. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227232
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
64750/01, [2005] ECHR 368
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227304
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – No violation of Art. 5-1-e; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; No separate issue under Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
The complainant had been subject to detention in a mental hospital. She now complained that there had been a twelve month delay between a decision that she should be released subject to conditions, and the fulfillment of those conditions and her release.
Held: The delay was unreasonable, and since the law provided no means of compensation, a breach had occurred of her article 5.5 rights. It could not be excluded that the applicant would have been released earlier from detention in a psychiatric hospital if the procedures had been in conformity with article 5(4). The delay had been of about 12 months. The award was 6000Eur.
517/02, (2006) 42 EHRR 2, Times 28-Jul-2005, [2005] ECHR 411
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227204
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 17; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
69338/01, [2005] ECHR 363
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227277
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) – Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient.
[1991] ECHR 27, 12245/86, 12244/86, 12383/86
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Fox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-1990
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227234
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings.
64935/01, [2005] ECHR 364
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Chmelir v The Czech Republic ECHR 12-Oct-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227293
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
63733/00, [2005] ECHR 399
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227321
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine the other complaints under Art. 6; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
39708/98, [2005] ECHR 369
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227305
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine under Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings.
74456/01, [2005] ECHR 288
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227333
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected; Violation of Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 2; Not necessary to examine Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 18; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.
23184/94;23185/94, [1998] ECHR 36
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227267
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected.
60654/00, [2005] ECHR 405, [2005] ECHR 923
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .
See Also – Sisojeva And Others v Latvia ECHR 15-Jan-2007
Grand Chamber – There was insufficient evidence that the questioning by security police in the circumstances: ‘should be regarded as a form of ‘pressure’, ‘intimidation’ or ‘harassment’ which might have induced the applicants to withdraw or modify . .
Cited – Wang Yam, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another SC 16-Dec-2015
The appellant was to apply to the ECHR challenge the fairness of his trial because it was held partially in camera. The UK resisted this application. The appellant sought to be permitted in his response to disclose and refer to contents of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227288
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 9; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+9; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
19234/91, [1997] ECHR 29
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227253
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved.
43662/98, [2005] ECHR 294
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Scordino v Italy (No. 2) ECHR 15-Jul-2004
. .
See Also – Scordino v Italy ECHR 29-Jul-2004
(French Text) Grand Chamber. In the context of unreasonable delay in violation of article 6(1), there was a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings would occasion non-pecuniary damage. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227337
The Appellant is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He has been given leave to appeal the determination of an Adjudicator dismissing his appeal against the Respondent’s decision to give directions for his removal from the United Kingdom and to refuse asylum.
Moulden Ch
[2002] UKIAT 05220
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227149
Sedley LJ considered the circumstances where the Secretary of state should take into account the defendant’s article 8 human rights when considering deportation after serving a sentence of imprisonment: ‘Generally, the protection of family life under Article 8 involves cohabiting dependants, such as parents and their dependant minor children. Whether it extends to other relationships depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Relationships between adults, a mother and her 33 year old son in the present case, would not necessarily acquire the protection of Article 8 of the Convention without evidence of further elements of dependency, involving more than the normal emotional ties.’ and ‘ . . neither blood ties nor the concern and affection that ordinarily go with them are, by themselves or together, in my judgment enough to constitute family life’
Arden LJ said: ‘There is no presumption that a person has a family life, even with the members of a person’s immediate family. The court has to scrutinise the relevant factors. Such factors include identifying who are the near relatives of the appellant, the nature of the links between them and the appellant, the age of the appellant, where and with whom he has resided in the past, and the forms of contact he has maintained with the other members of the family with whom he claims to have a family life.
because there is no presumption of family life, in my judgment a family life is not established between an adult child and his surviving parent or other siblings unless something more exists than normal emotional ties: See S v United Kingdom (1984) 40DR 196 and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v the United Kingdom [1985] 7 EHRR 471. Such ties might exist if the appellant were dependant on his family or visa versa.’
Sedley LJ, Arden LJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 31, [2003] INLR 170, [2003] All ER (D) 144
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v HK (Turkey) CA 27-May-2010
The SS appealed against the successful appeal by the respondent against a deportation order. He had come to England in 1994, been granted indefinite leave to stay, and made a family here. In 2007 he was convicted of grievous bodily harm.
Held: . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227089
[2005] EWHC 1092 (QB)
Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226996
Request for judicial review of refusal to pay compensation for wrongful detention in prison after end of sentence.
Bennett J
[2004] EWHC 3084 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 5(5)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226917
The defendant, who had since died, had been convicted of a public order offence in that standing in a street he had displayed a range of placards opposing homosexuality. He appealed saying that the finding was an unwarranted infringement of his article 9 and article 10 rights, and that the words used were not in fact insulting.
Held: The appeal failed. Any restriction on his rights of free expression were compatible with article 10. The justices had however brought all the relevant considerations into play.They had found as a fact that the words were insulting, andthat finding was not so far outisde what might properly be concluded to allow its setting aside. The words were shprt and not intemperate. They did however associate homosexuality with immorality.
May LJ, Harrison J
[2004] EWHC 69 (Admin)
Public Order Act 1986 5, European Convention on Human Rights 9 10
Cited – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
Cited – Nicol and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 22-Nov-1995
The defendant’s behaviour complained of must be at least unreasonable if not unlawful to found a binding over for breach of the peace. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘the court would surely not find a s.115 complaint proved if any violence likely to have been . .
Cited – Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex Police CA 6-Apr-2000
A bailiff sought to execute against goods in a shop against the will of the occupier. The police attended and when tempers were raised the police officer anticipated a breach of the peace by the bailiff and arrested him. He sought damages for that . .
Cited – Kokkinakis v Greece ECHR 25-May-1993
The defendant was convicted for proselytism contrary to Greek law. He claimed a breach of Article 9.
Held: To say that Jehovah’s Witness were proselytising criminally was excessive. Punishment for proselytising was unlawful in the . .
Cited – Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
Cited – Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Sep-2005
The appellant had been convicted under section 4 of the 1986 Act. He had been accused of attending at Luton Guruwarda and intending to cause distress. He said that he had gone only peacefully to express his true religious beliefs. He had left a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226858
66373/01, [2003] ECHR 667
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.213612
Challenge to refusal of indefinite leave to remain, saying that a return would infringe his articles 3 and 5 rights beause of his mental condition.
Anthony Thornton QC J
[2013] EWHC 2127 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.513530
The applicant was a soldier who had been court marshalled for misuse of travel warrants. He wished to use in his defence his recent epilepsy. There was some delay while medical reports were obtained, and subsequently when the new legal system was brought in and again for the issue of a new legal aid order. Eventually he came to challenge the proceedings as an abuse for delay. The proceedings took nearly 5 years.
Held: The delay was not all at the feet of the prosecutors, but they should have taken a firmer hold on matters. The delay amounted to a time which was unreasonable and in breach of the appellant’s right to a fair trial.
‘The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to ‘secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention’, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, the McCann judgment cited above, p 49, para 161, and the Kaya v Turkey [1998] ECHR 22729/93, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p 324, para 86 of the latter reports). The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. What form of investigation will achieve those purposes may vary in different circumstances. However, whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their own motion, once the matter has come to their attention. They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ilhan v Turkey [GC] [2000] ECHR 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, para 63).’
49771/99, (2003) 37 EHRR 2, [2002] ECHR 797, [2002] ECHR 803, [2001] Inquest LR 101, (2001) 11 BHRC 1
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 29-Jan-2002
The claimant challenged the Lord Chancellor’s failure to introduce legislation to ensure that the coroners’ system in Northern Ireland comprised with Human Rights Law. . .
See Also – Re Jordan’s Application QBNI 8-Mar-2002
The claimant challenged a ruling of the coroner on 9 January 2002 that he would conduct the inquest on the basis of existing law and practice and would not leave to the jury the option of returning a verdict of unlawful killing. . .
Cited – In re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
At ECHR – Jordan v Lord Chancellor and Another (Northern Ireland) HL 28-Mar-2007
In each case a death had occurred many years earlier where the deceased had apparently died at the hands of the armed forces. The relatives now challenged the range of verdicts which could be left to a coroner’s jury.
Lord Bingham said: ‘The . .
At ECHR – Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 12-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Jordan v Lord Chancellor and Another (Northern Ireland) HL 28-Mar-2007
In each case a death had occurred many years earlier where the deceased had apparently died at the hands of the armed forces. The relatives now challenged the range of verdicts which could be left to a coroner’s jury.
Lord Bingham said: ‘The . .
Cited – Saunders and Tucker, Regina (on the Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers and others Admn 10-Oct-2008
The deceased had been shot by police during an armed siege. His family complained that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had declined to order the officers not to confer with each other before making statements.
Held: The authority . .
Cited – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 16-May-2008
The complainant’s brother had been arrested for being drunk. After a time in a cell, he was found unwell and fell into a coma. Complaints were made of his treatment. The Police Complaints Commission was to investigate the events after the arrest . .
Cited – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission and Another CA 22-Oct-2008
The court was asked to consider whether the IPCC could investigate the circumstances leading to the arrest of a suspect who fell into a coma after being arrested for being drunk. The IPCC appealed, saying that it did not have jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Mousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
Cited – Letts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 20-Feb-2015
Application for judicial review concerning the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.178422
The claimant had been in England since he was 11, and was now 38. He had been repeatedly convicted. He had challenged a deportation notice on a human rights basis. He now challenged a certificate that this claim was manifestly ill founded.
Held: The certificate was quashed. The respondent was wrong to say that he had already made a human rights claim. Section 94 (5) (b) clearly specifies that the act of removal from the United Kingdom to the removing country is a fact which can, and does, trigger article 8 claims. So that shows that it is the consequences of removal in the United Kingdom which can be relevant. The respondent had failed to take proper account of the position of the applicant’s family involvements and the impact which his removal would have on his children, partner and on his disabled mother. The respondent must consider the claimant’s application again.
Silber J
[2008] EWHC 2474 (Admin)
Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 94(3), European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
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 . .
Cited – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 6-Oct-2005
. .
Cited – Beoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
Cited – Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Anirah v Same Admn 23-May-2008
Both claimants applied to the defendant Secretary of State to have deportation orders made against them revoked on asylum or human rights grounds. These applications were rejected. Both had previously made asylum or human rights claims that were the . .
Cited – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
Cited – WM (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Nov-2006
The court considered the proper role of the Secretary of state and of the court when failed asylum seekers produced new material arguing that it was a fresh claim. Buxton LJ said: ‘has the Secretary of State asked himself the correct question? The . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – Maslov v Austria ECHR 22-Mar-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.277015