Category: Human Rights

Mouisel v France: ECHR 14 Nov 2002

The applicant had been sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment for several offences. He had leukemia and was to receive chemotherapy in hospital. He complained of the conditions to which he was subjected during the hospital visits, including the behaviour of the guards, and the fact that he had been chained to the hospital bed. Medical reports recommended that he be transferred to a specialist clinic, but there was delay in acting on that recommendation. Subsequently, he was released on licence, subject to the condition of obtaining medical treatment. He made two main complaints of breach of Article 3. First, as to the failure to release him from custody in the face of the medical advice. Secondly, as to the circumstances in which he had been restrained and handcuffed.
Held: The court made general observations in relation to Article 3: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim . . Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3’
As to handcuffing, the court said: ‘The Court reiterates that handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with a lawful detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, whether there is a danger that the person concerned might abscond or cause injury or damage . . In the instant case, having regard to the applicant’s health, to the fact that he was being taken to hospital, to the discomfort of undergoing a chemotherapy session and to his physical weakness, the Court considers that the use of handcuffs was disproportionate to the needs of security. As regards the danger presented by the applicant, and notwithstanding his criminal record, the Court notes the absence of any previous conduct or other evidence giving serious grounds to fear that there was a significant danger of his absconding or resorting to violence. Lastly, the Court notes the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture concerning the conditions in which prisoners are transferred to hospital to undergo medical examinations – conditions which, in the Committee’s opinion, continue to raise problems in terms of medical ethics and respect for human dignity . . The applicant’s descriptions of the conditions in which he was escorted to and from hospital do not seem very far removed from the situations causing the Committee concern in this area.’

Citations:

67263/01, [2002] ECHR 734, [2002] ECHR 740, [2011] ECHR 2109

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 9-May-2008
Challenge by elderly prisoner with cancer to be handcuffed whilst attending hospital. He was in prison for a violent sexual offence, and whilst in prison had not engaged in offending reducing programs. . .
Cited – C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 28-Jul-2008
The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213250

Podkolzina v Latvia: ECHR 9 Apr 2002

Citations:

46726/99, [2002] ECHR 405

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213085

Van Marle And Others v The Netherlands: ECHR 26 Jun 1986

The applicants were accountants who had practised as such for some years when a new statute came into force which required then to register. Their applications were refused.
Held: Article 1PI was engaged. In paragraphs 41 and 42 the Court said this: ‘The Court agrees with the Commission that the right relied upon by the applicants may be likened to the right of property embodied in Article 1: by dint of their own work, the applicants had built up a clientele: this had in many respects the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and, hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1. This provision was accordingly applicable in the present case.
The refusal to register the applicants as certified accountants radically affected the conditions of their professional activities and the scope of those activities was reduced. Their income fell, as did the value of their clientele and, more generally, their business. Consequently, there was interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.’

Citations:

[1986] ECHR 6, 8674/79, 8543/79, 8675/79, (1986) 8 EHRR 483

Links:

Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Malik, Regina (on the Application of) v Waltham Forest PCT and Secretary of State for Health Admn 17-Mar-2006
The doctor had been suspended on full pay whilst allegations against him were investigated. He claimed that the suspension infringed his human rights and that his licence to practice was a possession.
Held: At the disciplinary proceedings: . .
Cited – Murungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
Cited – Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.211534

Nazarenko v Ukraine: ECHR 29 Apr 2003

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of Art. 3 ; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to initial period ; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to later period ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award

Citations:

39483/98, [2003] ECHR 213

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.181646

Miragall Escolano And Others v Spain (Article 41): ECHR 25 May 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (arrangement) 38366/97; 38688/97; 40777/98; 40843/98; 41015/98; 41400/98; 41446/98; 41484/98; 41487/98; 41509/98

Citations:

38366/97 ; 38688/97 ; 407

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on the Application of Lester v The London Rent Assessment Committee CA 12-Mar-2003
The court faced the question of, whether if a landlord serves a notice on an assured tenant under section 13(2) of the Act proposing an increase in rent, that will be the rent unless, before the beginning of the new period specified in the notice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.165876

Ponnusamy and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: QBD 30 Mar 2015

Application made by the defendant Secretary of State to strike out the Particulars of Claim (POC) and enter judgment for the Defendant pursuant to CPR 3(4) because they disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. The claim was that: ‘ that the interests of the Indian (mainly Tamil speaking) population of Malaysia were ignored during the period 1944 to 1957 when independence was agreed with a constitution that provided for an entrenched privileged position for the ethnically Malay community. It is contended that the community of mainly Tamil indentured labourers worked on British owned estates and mines. They did not speak the Malay language and many were illiterate and undocumented. They either did not have the right to vote in the emerging democracy after the Second World War or were not registered to vote and in any event were not politically organised or represented. As British subjects or protected persons before the coming in to force of the British Nationality Act 1948, and because the British government were aware of their vulnerable status it is contended that they were entitled to the special protection of the colonial power to safeguard their interests when sovereignty was ceded. It is then contended that this duty of protection was not property discharged, leaving them in a vulnerable position after independence from which each of the claimants has suffered with respect to access to higher education, employment in government, ownership of land, conducting business, the security of Hindu religious land and cemeteries and personal status with respect to registration of marriage and acquisition of citizenship.’

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1760 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.549245

Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 31 Jul 2000

Whether a stateless person who is unable to return to the country of his former habitual residence is, by reason of those facts alone, a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as modified by the 1967 New York Protocol. The Tribunal found, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department contends, that it is also necessary to establish a present well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’.

Judges:

Pill, Clarke LJJ, Bennett J

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 500, [2000] 3 WLR 1519, [2000] Imm AR 610, [2001] QB 601, [2000] INLR 646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.231543

ZT v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 24 Nov 2005

The applicant entered the UK as a visitor, but resisted her return home saying that she had HIV, and would not receive proper treatment for her condition if returned to Zimbabwe.
Held: the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment did not require a contracting state to guarantee medical treatment to aliens.

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1421, Times 23-Dec-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – N v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 5-May-2005
The applicant had sought asylum here, but her application was rejected. She was suffering advanced HIV/AIDS. With continued proper treatment she would survive several years. If returned to Uganda she would not receive that treatment and would not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.235439

Metropolitan Church Of Bessarabia And Others v Moldova: ECHR 13 Dec 2001

‘in principle, the right to freedom of religion as understood in the Convention rules out any appreciation by the state of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or of the manner in which these are expressed’

Citations:

45701/99, (2002) 35 EHRR 306, [2001] ECHR 860

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Mar-2014
latterdayECHR0314
The claimant said that it had been wrongfully deprived of relief from business rates for its two temples. It asserted that it was a religion, and that the treatment was discriminatory. The government said that the refusal was on the basis alone that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.212738