ECHR Preliminary objection rejected (victim); No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine Art. 13
Citations:
[1996] ECHR 62, 23366/94
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165467
Category: Human Rights
Gul v Switzerland: ECHR 19 Feb 1996
A Turkish father, who had been permitted on humanitarian grounds to reside with his wife in Switzerland, failed to establish that, by refusing to allow their seven-year-old son to join them in Switzerland, the state had interfered with respect for his family life.
Held: The father and his wife had no permanent right of abode in Switzerland. The Court recognised the possibility that a State might be under an obligation to admit relatives of settled immigrants in order to develop family life. The right to care for ‘your own children’ is ‘a fundamental element of an elementary right.’
Citations:
23218/94, (1996) 22 EHRR 93, [1996] ECHR 5
Links:
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165404
Akdivar and Others v Turkey: ECHR 16 Sep 1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 25-1; Violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 18; Not necessary to examine Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 5; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – reserved; Non-pecuniary damage – reserved; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
In assessing whether domestic remedies have been exhausted, account should be taken not only of the formal remedies available in the legal system concerned but also of the particular circumstances of the case in question.
Citations:
[1996] ECHR 35, 21893/93
Links:
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2009
The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic . .
See Also – Akdivar And Others v Turkey ECHR 1-Apr-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Claim that an agreement has been reached rejected; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 2-Nov-2010
The applicant, professor in adolescent psychiatry had collected assorted data after having given undertakings to the parents of the children as to its absolute privacy. A sociologist had applied for and been given authority for its release by the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165432
Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Oct 1996
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: ‘Limitation periods in personal injury cases are a common feature of the domestic legal systems of the Contracting States. They serve several important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential defendants from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence which might have become unreliable and incomplete because of the passage of time.’
The Court considered the positive duty falling on states to protect against child abuse: ‘Sexual abuse is unquestionably an abhorrent type of wrongdoing, with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals are entitled to state protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such grave types of interference with essential aspects of their private lives.’
Citations:
Times 24-Oct-1996, (1996) 23 EHRR 213, [1996] ECHR 44, 22083/93, 22095/93
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Citing:
Appeal from – Stubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .
Cited by:
Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Appealed to – Stubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Adamson v United Kingdom ECHR 1999
The Court considered whether the notification requirements of the UK sex offenders’ registration scheme constitute a penalty for the purposes of Article 7 or infringed the applicant’s rights under Article 8.
Held: They did not. As to article . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Cited – A v Hoare QBD 14-Oct-2005
The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Cited – F and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Apr-2010
The defendants had been convicted and sentenced for offences which under the 2003 Act would mean that they stayed permanently on the Sex Offenders’ register without possibility of a review. The Secretary of State appealed aganst a finding that the . .
Cited – Matheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165444
Wingrove v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1996
The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others.
Held: The provision of a system which would allow the refusal of a video certificate permitting distribution, is within an individual nation’s margin of appreciation, and not an infringement of the film distributors right of free speech. ‘Whereas there is little scope under Article 10 paragraph 2 . . for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest . . . a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the contracting states when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals.’
‘ . . the English law of blasphemy does not prohibit the expression, in any form, of views hostile to the Christian religion. Nor can it be said that opinions which are offensive to Christians necessarily fall within its ambit. As the English courts have indicated, it is the manner in which views are advocated rather than the views themselves which the law seeks to control. The extent of insult to religious feelings must be significant as is clear from the use by the courts of the adjectives ‘contemptuous’, ‘reviling’, ‘scurrilous’, ‘ludicrous’ to depict material of a sufficient degree of offensiveness. The high degree of profanation that must be attained constitutes in itself, a safeguard against arbitrariness. It is against this background that the asserted justification under Article 10(2) in the decisions of the national authorities must be considered.’
Citations:
Times 05-Dec-1996, Case 19/1995, [1997] 24 EHRR 1, 17419/90, [1996] ECHR 60, [1996] ECHR 60
Links:
Statutes:
Video Recordings Act 1984, European Convention on Human Rights Art 10.2
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Perrin CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the . .
Cited – Goldstein, Rimmington v Regina CACD 28-Nov-2003
Two defendants appealed in respect of alleged offences under common law of causing a public nuisance. One had sent race hatred material, and the other bomb hoaxes, through the post. Both claimed that the offence was so ill defined as to be an . .
Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
Cited – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Cited – Green, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
Cited – Core Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Human Rights, Crime
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165468
Baegen v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1995
Hussain v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his punitive period, to bring the case of his continued detention before a court. The court said that he was entitled under article 5(4) to have the issue of his dangerousness to society, a characteristic susceptible to change with the passage of time, decided by a court at reasonable intervals. Article 5 (4) required an oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses.
Citations:
Times 26-Feb-1996, 21928/93, (1996) 22 EHRR 1, [1996] ECHR 8
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
Cited by:
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Browne v The Queen PC 6-May-1999
(St Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder whilst still a youth. He had accordingly been sentenced to be detained ‘during [the Governor-General’s] pleasure; and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Mentioned – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 25-Oct-2012
The claimant was a prisoner released on a home detention licence, but his licence had been revoked. He now said that the way it had been revoked, without the respondent’s decision being subject to confirmation by the Parole Board, nor to other . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165419
Efstratiou v Greece: ECHR 18 Dec 1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1996] ECHR 69, 24095/94
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165477
Amuur v France: ECHR 25 Jun 1996
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
‘In order to determine whether someone has been ‘deprived of his liberty’ within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. Holding aliens in the international zone does indeed involve a restriction upon liberty, but one which is not in every respect comparable to that which obtains in centres for the detention of aliens pending deportation. Such confinement, accompanied by suitable safeguards for the persons concerned, is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. States’ legitimate concern to foil the increasingly frequent attempts to get round immigration restrictions must not deprive asylum seekers of the protection afforded by these Conventions. Such holding should not be prolonged excessively, otherwise there would be a risk of it turning a mere restriction on liberty-inevitable with a view to organising the practical details of the alien’s repatriation or, where he has requested asylum, while his application for leave to enter the territory for that purpose is considered-into a deprivation of liberty. In that connection account should be taken of the fact that the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country. Although by the force of circumstances the decision to order holding must necessarily be taken by the administrative or police authorities, its prolongation requires speedy review by the courts, the traditional guardians of personal liberties. Above all, such confinement must not deprive the asylum seeker of the right to gain effective access to the procedure for determining refugee status’.
Citations:
19776/92, (1996) 22 EHRR 533, [1996] ECHR 25
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165423
Johansen v Norway: ECHR 7 Aug 1996
The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents’ wishes.
Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent: ‘These measures were particularly far-reaching in that they totally deprived the applicant of her family life with the child and were inconsistent with the aim of reuniting them. Such measures should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and could only be justified if they were motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child’s best interests.’
Citations:
17383/90, (1997) 23 EHRR 33, [1996] ECHR 31
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
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 – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Cited – R And H v The United Kingdom ECHR 31-May-2011
The court considered arrangements for an adoption in Northern Ireland where the parent’s consent was withheld.
Held: For parental consent to be overriden there had to be shown an overriding need for the decision. . .
Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Cited – YC v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Mar-2012
The court spelt out the stark effects of the proportionality requirement in its application to a determination that a child should be adopted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Children, Adoption
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165440
Murray v The United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Feb 1996
The applicant had been denied legal advice for 48 hours after he had been taken into custody.
Held: There had been a violation of article 6(1) read with article 6(3)(c). However, it was not a breach of human rights to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right.
As to the US judgment in Miranda, Walsh J, dissenting in part, pointed out that the US Supreme Court had affirmed that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment: ‘guarantees to the individual the ‘right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own free will’ whether during custodial interrogation or in court.’
Judges:
R Ryssdal, President
Citations:
Times 09-Feb-1996, 18731/91, [1996] ECHR 3, (1996) 23 EHRR 313, [1996] 22 EHRR 29
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 691) 693)(c)
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Miranda v Arizona 10-Oct-1966
(United States Supreme Court) The prosecution may not use statements, whether incriminatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards which were sufficient to secure . .
Cited by:
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
See Also – Murray v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Sep-2010
(Final Execution) The Court having found the respondent to have been in breach of the claimants’ human rights in having denied them access to legal advice on arrest for a period of up to 48 hours, now concluded that necessary measures had been taken . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165406
Iribarne Perez v France: ECHR 24 Oct 1995
Fischer v Austria: ECHR 26 Apr 1995
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 6-1 (right of access); Violation of Art. 6-1 (publicly); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1995] ECHR 11, 16922/90, [1995] ECHR 11
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165352
Bryan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Nov 1995
Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that planning permission should be granted), (b) (that there had been no breach of planning control) and two other grounds. The Secretary of State appointed an inspector who rejected the appeal on ground (a) because the buildings did not enhance or preserve the appearance of the conservation area. On ground (b), Mr Bryan contended that the buildings were ‘designed for the purpose of agriculture’ and that planning permission for them was deemed to have been granted. The applicant was served with an enforcement notice requiring him to demolish the buildings. He complained that the inspector’s decision did not satisfy article 6(1). The court and the Commission described the role of the inspector and the procedures to be followed under the Town and Country Planning Act including both his duty under the Framework Directive of the Secretary of State to exercise independent judgment and not to be or to be seen to be subject to any improper influence and to act fairly but at the same time to have regard to the policies promulgated by the Secretary of State on matters of planning. The Commission accepted that there had been a fair hearing before the inspector. Because however the inspector’s appointment to hear the appeal could be revoked in a situation where the executive’s own policies may be in issue, the inspector did not satisfy the requirements of article 6 that there must be an independent and impartial tribunal.
Held: The inspector’s hearing had been fair, given the national court’s powers of review.
UK Planning appeal procedures were not in breach of the human rights convention. If, at the end of whatever is the overall process in question, there is a fully Article 6 compliant court or tribunal to give fair consideration to the case, Article 6 is not engaged at the earlier stage(s). The court noted, however, that an appeal to the High Court was only on points of law and therefore: ‘not capable of embracing all aspects of the inspector’s decision. . . In particular, as is not infrequently the case in relation to administrative law appeals in the Council of Europe member states, there was no rehearing as such of the original complaints submitted to the inspector; the High Court could not substitute its own decision on the merits for that of the inspector; and its jurisdiction over the facts was limited.’
Judges:
Ryssdal, P
Citations:
Times 08-Dec-1995, 19178/91, 44/1994/491/573, [1995] ECHR 50, [1996] 28 EG 137, [1996] 2 EGLR 123, [1996] 1 PLR 47, (1996) 21 EHRR 342
Links:
Statutes:
European Cionvention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v Kelly PC 11-Feb-2003
PC (The High Court of Justiciary) The minuter challenged the role of the legal adviser to the district courts in Scotland, and as to his independence.
Held: The legal adviser was not subject to the same . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Sadler v The General Medical Council PC 15-Jul-2003
(The Committee on Professional Performance of the GMC) The distinction drawn in Krippendorf between a practitioner’s current competence and past performance was not to be taken too far. The purpose of the assessment was not to punish the . .
Cited – MB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
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 . .
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School and Others CA 20-Jan-2010
The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to . .
Cited – Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
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 . .
Cited – Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165392
Spadea And Scalabrino v Italy: ECHR 28 Sep 1995
Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1
Citations:
[1995] ECHR 35, 12868/87, (1996) 21 EHRR 482
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165390
Procola v Luxembourg: ECHR 28 Sep 1995
A dairy association complained of milk quota orders made with retrospective effect under domestic provisions. A regulation had been submitted in draft to the Conseil d’Etat, which had advised that a statute was necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed new rules and had drafted a single clause bill which had been enacted as the statute. The association’s challenge to the four orders, based on their retrospective effect among other things, came before the Judicial Committee of the Conseil d’Etat, four of whose five members had previously taken part in drawing up the Conseil d’Etat’s opinion on the draft regulation and framing the bill. The association’s challenge was dismissed, and it complained that the Judicial Committee was not an independent and impartial tribunal and that its rights under article 6 of the European Convention had been violated. A majority of the Commission held that there had been no violation of article 6, but a minority dissented, holding (page 203) that, having regard to the importance of appearances and the increased concern of the public that the fair administration of justice should be guaranteed, the association could legitimately fear that its case would not be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Court unanimously upheld this dissent. In paragraphs 44-45 of its judgment it said: ‘The only issue to be determined is whether the Judicial Committee satisfied the impartiality requirement of Article 6 of the Convention, regard being had to the fact that four of its five members had to rule on the lawfulness of a regulation which they had previously scrutinised in their advisory capacity. The Court notes that four members of the Conseil d’Etat carried out both advisory and judicial functions in the same case. In the context of an institution such as Luxembourg’s Conseil d’Etat the mere fact that certain persons successively performed these two types of function in respect of the same decisions is capable of casting doubt on the institution’s structural impartiality. In the instant case, Procola had legitimate grounds for fearing that the members of the Judicial Committee had felt bound by the opinion previously given. That doubt in itself, however slight its justification, is sufficient to vitiate the impartiality of the tribunal in question, and this makes it unnecessary for the Court to look into the other aspects of the complaint.’
Citations:
14570/89, (1995) 22 EHRR 193, [1995] ECHR 33
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Distinguished – Pabla Ky v Finland ECHR 22-Jun-2004
A member of the Finnish Parliament who also sat as an expert member of the Court of Appeal was said to lack independence as a judge.
Held: The complaint was rejected. Also there was no no objective justification for the applicant’s fear as to . .
Cited – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165372
Loizidou v Turkey: ECHR 23 Mar 1995
(Preliminary objections) The ECHR considered the situation in northern Cyprus when it was asked as to Turkey’s preliminary objections to admissibility: ‘although Article 1 sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ under this provision is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. According to its established case law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention. In addition, the responsibility of Contracting Parties can be involved because of acts of their authorities, whether performed within or outside national boundaries, which produce effects outside their own territory.’
the Court set out three different routes by which matters are capable of falling within the ‘jurisdiction’ of a member state even though they occur outside its national territory: i) The extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 and hence engage the responsibility of that state under the ECHR (see Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439, para 91); ii) The responsibility of Contracting Parties can be involved because of acts of their authorities, whether performed within or outside national bodies, which produce effects outside their own territory (Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745, para 91);
iii) The responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action – whether lawful or unlawful – it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory.’
‘Bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action – whether lawful or unlawful – it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration.’
Judges:
R Ryssdal P
Citations:
15318/89, (1995) 20 EHRR 99, [1995] ECHR 10
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .
Admissibility – Loizidou v Turkey ECHR 4-Mar-1991
Admissibility . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in . .
See Also – Loizidou v Turkey (Merits) ECHR 18-Dec-1996
The court was asked whether Turkey was answerable under the Convention for its acts in Northern Cyprus.
Held: It was unnecessary to determine whether Turkey actually exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the authorities . .
See Also – Loizidou v Turkey (Article 50) ECHR 28-Jul-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses – claim rejected (State) . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
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.
Preliminary Objections – Loizidou v Turkey ECHR 28-Jul-1998
Grand Chamber – Turkey – claims for just satisfaction in respect of Court’s finding, in principal judgment, of violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention
I. Entitlement to just satisfaction
Court’s finding in principal . .
Cited – Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence SC 19-Jun-2013
The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165354
Prager And Oberschlick v Austria: ECHR 26 Apr 1995
Article 10 requires that journalists be permitted a good deal of latitude in how they present their material and that a degree of exaggeration must also be accepted. The media have a special place in any democratic society as purveyor of information and public watchdog. There is a strong public interest in maintaining the confidence of the public at large in the courts. Article 6 is intended, among other things, to promote confidence in the judicial process: ‘Regard must . . be had to the special role of the judiciary in society. As the guarantor of justice, a fundamental value in a law-governed State, it must enjoy public confidence if it is to be successful in carrying out its duties.’
Citations:
15974/90, (1996) 21 EHRR 1, [1995] ECHR 12, [1995] ECHR 12, [1995] ECHR 12 – 2
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y FD 24-Nov-2005
Application was made by the claimant for orders discharging an order made in 1991 to protect the identity of children and social workers embroiled in allegations of satanic sex abuse. The defendant opposed disclosure of the names of two social . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Media
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165353
Diennet v France: ECHR 26 Sep 1995
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 (publicly); No violation of Art. 6-1 (impartiality); Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
‘The Court reiterates that the holding of court hearings in public constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6. This public character protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the court can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6(1), namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society.’
Citations:
(1995) 21 EHRR 554, 18160/91, [1995] ECHR 28, [1996] 21 EHRR 554, [1995] ECHR 28
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – Re S (A Child) CA 10-Jul-2003
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 10-Jul-2003
An order was sought to protect from publicity a child whose mother faced trial for the murder of his brother. The child was now in care.
Held: The court must balance the need to protect the child with the need for freedom of the press. The . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – A Local Authority v W L W T and R; In re W (Children) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) FD 14-Jul-2005
An application was made by a local authority to restrict publication of the name of a defendant in criminal proceedings in order to protect children in their care. The mother was accused of having assaulted the second respondent by knowingly . .
Cited – Norfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165376
Agrotexim and Others v Greece: ECHR 24 Oct 1995
Hudoc Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (ratione temporis); Preliminary objection allowed (victim); Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible, new complaint)
The applicant companies held shares in a company owning development land. The local Council took steps to expropriate the land. The shareholders complained that the company’s rights had been violated and that, in turn, that had adversely affected their rights because of the resulting fall in the value of their shares. The complaint was based on the proposition that the alleged violation of the Brewery’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had affected their own financial interests because of the resulting fall in the value of their shares.
Held: A lifting of the corporate veil so as to disregard the fact that the person directly affected – the Brewery – was a separate legal personality and was (if anyone was) the victim, would be justified only in exceptional circumstances such as where it itself could not have raised the complaint.
Citations:
14807/89, (1996) EHRR 250, [1995] ECHR 42
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Weir and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another ChD 14-Oct-2005
The claimants were shareholders in Railtrack. They complained that the respondent had abused his position to place the company into receivership so as to avoid paying them compensation on a repurchase of the shares. Mr Byers was accused of ‘targeted . .
Adopted – Humberclyde Finance Group Ltd v Hicks 14-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Company
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165381
Kerojarvi v Finland: ECHR 19 Jul 1995
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1995] ECHR 27, 17506/90
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Uzukauskas v Lithuania ECHR 6-Jul-2010
ECHR The applicant had a licence for a pistol and rifle. His was refused another licence, and then the existing licence was withdrawn. His name had been included in a police list in an operational records file . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165377
Funke v France: ECHR 25 Feb 1993
M. Funke successfully challenged his conviction for failing to provide documents which the customs authorities had demanded of him, on the grounds that his rights under Article 6 had been infringed: ‘The Court notes that the customs secured Mr. Funke’s conviction in order to obtain certain documents which they believed must exist, although they were not certain of the fact. Being unable or unwilling to procure them by some other means, they attempted to compel the applicant himself to provide the evidence of offences he had allegedly committed. The special features of customs law cannot justify such an infringement of the right of ‘anyone charged with a criminal offence’ within the autonomous meaning of this expression in Article 6, to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating itself.’
Citations:
(1993) 16 EHRR 297, 10828/84, [1993] ECHR 7, (1993) Series A No 256-A
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Allen HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Not Named (D) ComC 14-May-2003
The Office sought a warrant to enter the respondent’s premises.
Held: The powers which allowed entry by force into the premises by the Office were granted in pursuace of a legitimate aim. The Office had vital responsibility for the maintenance . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Cited – Hafner and Hochstrasser (A Firm), Regina (on the Application of) v Australian Securities and Investments Commission Admn 5-Mar-2008
The Commission renewed its application for a review of a decision on their request for judicial assistance in obtaining evidence from the firm. The firm had produced confidential documents to the court, and not disclosed to the Commission.
Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165248
Imbrioscia v Switzerland: ECHR 24 Nov 1993
The applicant had been questioned several times without access to a lawyer while he was in police custody.
Held: Overall there had been no breach of article 6(1). The right set out in article 6(3)(c) is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in article 6(1). The way in which articles 6(1) and 6(3)(c) were to be applied during the preliminary investigation depended on the special features of the proceedings and on the circumstances of the case.
Judge De Meyer (dissenting) said that the court had failed to recognise the rules governing the right to legal advice during custodial interrogation which the Supreme Court has summarised in its Miranda judgment and which he said belonged to the very essence of fair trial.
Judges:
Ryssdal, President, De Meyer J
Citations:
[1993] ECHR 56, 13972/88, (1994) 17 EHRR 441
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention of Human Rights 6(1) 6(3)(c)
Citing:
Cited – Miranda v Arizona 10-Oct-1966
(United States Supreme Court) The prosecution may not use statements, whether incriminatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards which were sufficient to secure . .
Cited by:
Cited – Zaichenko v Russia ECHR 18-Feb-2010
(First Section) The claimant complaned that he had not been allowed access to a lawyer when being questioned by police when he was not under arrest. He had been stopped driving home from work and his car inspected by the police after reports of . .
Cited – Salduz v Turkey ECHR 27-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate.
Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
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: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165297
Trevisan v Italy: ECHR 26 Feb 1993
Hudoc 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
Citations:
[1993] ECHR 15, 13688/88
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165245
Vendittelli v Italy: ECHR 18 Jul 1994
Pizzetti v Italy: ECHR 26 Feb 1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
12444/86, [1993] ECHR 13
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165243
Van De Hurk v The Netherlands: ECHR 19 Apr 1994
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 (independent tribunal); No violation of Art. 6-1 (fair trial); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant was a dairy farmer. Under the scheme operated within the European Community for reducing surplus milk products, he was allocated a milk production quota. His claim for a higher quota was rejected, as was his subsequent appeal before the relevant authorities in his country. He complained that his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6(1) of the Convention had been infringed.
Held: There had been a violation of Article 6.1 in that the applicant’s civil rights and obligations had not been ‘determined’ by a ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of that provision. The binding decision of an impartial tribunal could not be altered by a non-judicial authority to the detriment of an individual. The opportunity to a party to have knowledge and comment must be a genuine one.
(Commission) ‘Article 6(1) extends only to disputes over ‘civil rights and obligations’ which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. Such a dispute must be genuine and of a serious nature; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its existence and, finally, the result of the proceedings concerning the dispute at issue must be directly decisive for such a right.
It is not contested that there was a ‘dispute’ concerning a ‘right’ since the allocation of both a milk-quota and an extra levy-free quota conferred a ‘right’ to the applicant to produce a determined quantity of milk, subject to the condition that a levy must be paid for any surplus.
The size of a milk-quota determines for each diary farmer the quantity of milk he is authorised to produce. It is therefore decisive for his income. The fact that in addition a milk-quota is transferable confers to it the character of, in the words the European Court of Human Rights, a ‘pecuniary’ right. Thus the allocation or refusal of a milk-quota may seriously affect a milk producers business activities. A dispute concerning the granting of a higher quota therefore involves the determination of civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention.’
Citations:
[1994] ECHR 14, 16034/90, (1994) 18 EHRR 481
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – Williams and Another v Hinton and Another CA 14-Oct-2011
The appellant landlords appealed against the award of damages to their former tenants under the 1985 and 1972 Acts. The judge had proceeded to hear the case in their absence.
Held: The court considered whether the appellants should instead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Agriculture
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165320
Ravnsborg v Sweden: ECHR 23 Mar 1994
Article 6 did not apply to proceedings where the applicant had been fined for making improper statements in written observations before the Swedish courts. The proceedings were regarded as being outside the ambit of article 6 because they were disciplinary in character. The Court recognised the need for summary procedures.
Judges:
R. Ryssdal, P
Citations:
[1994] ECHR 11, 14220/88, (1994) 18 EHRR 38
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Dodds v Regina CACD 31-May-2002
The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine.
Held: The court set out the minimum requirements . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Crime
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165303
Karlheinz Schmidt v Germany: ECHR 18 Jul 1994
Article 14 of the Convention operates not by way of the conferral of a freestanding right not to be discriminated against, but rather by way of complementing the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms safeguarded by those other provisions.
Citations:
[1994] ECHR 22, 13580/88, [1994] 18 EHRR 513
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rghts 14
Cited by:
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
Cited – Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another ChD 17-Mar-2010
The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Discrimination
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165330
Padovani v Italy: ECHR 26 Feb 1993
Hudoc The Court considered the compatibility with Article 6(1) of a magistrate’s dual function of investigation and judgment.
Held: The summary investigative measures carried out by the magistrate in the particular case did not give rise to an objectively justified fear that he lacked impartiality when acting thereafter as judge in the case.
Citations:
[1993] ECHR 12, 13396/87
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Cited by:
Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Magistrates
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165242
Saraiva De Carvalho v Portugal: ECHR 22 Apr 1994
Saidi v France: ECHR 20 Sep 1993
S had been convicted on the basis of the evidence of drug addicts and in the situation where there was no opportunity to confront the witness.
Held: ‘The court reiterates that the taking of evidence is governed primarily by the rules of domestic law, and that it is in principle for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The court’s task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair. All the evidence must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing, with a view to adversarial argument. However, the use as evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police enquiry and judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with Article 6(3)(d) and (1) provided that the right to the defence had been respected. As a rule these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witness against him either when he was making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings.’ However there had been a breach of Article 6 since the testimony constituted ‘the sole basis’ for the applicant’s conviction, and the lack of any confrontation had deprived the defendant in certain respects of ‘a fair trial’. The court recognised the difficulties of the fight against drug trafficking, but ‘such considerations cannot justify restricting to this extent the rights of the defence of everyone charged with a criminal offence.’
Citations:
[1993] ECHR 39, 14647/89, (1993) 17 EHRR 251
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Illustrative – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165276
Lala v The Netherlands: ECHR 22 Sep 1994
Friedl v Austria: ECHR 31 Jan 1995
The Commission distinguished between the taking and keeping of photographs without identifying the subjects, and police questioning in order to establish identity and the recording of these personal data; the former was not an interference with article 8(1) but the latter was, although it was ‘relatively slight’ (Later friendly settlement).
Citations:
(1995) 21 EHRR 83, 15225/89, [1995] ECHR 12, [1995] ECHR 15225/89, [1995] ECHR 15974/90, (1996) 21 EHRR 1, (1995) 21 EHRR 83
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Admn 22-May-2008
The claimant challenged the right of police officers to take his photograph as he attended an annual general meeting of Reed Elsevier Plc. He was a campaigner against the arms trade, but had always acted lawfully. The company noted the purchase of . .
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – Catt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165342
Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1993
‘under the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent ‘ and ‘the contracting states have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases’ and articles 6(2) and 6(3) may have ‘a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law’.
Citations:
14448/88, (1993) 18 EHRR 213, [1993] ECHR 49
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – Josef Fischer v Austria ECHR 17-Jan-2002
The applicant had been convicted of criminal offences. He submitted an appeal by way of a plea of nullity. He complained that the Appeal court dealt with his application without serving on him a copy of the advice given to the Court by the . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – O and others (Children); In re O (Children), In re W-R (a Child), In re W (Children) CA 22-Jun-2005
In each case litigants in person had sought to be allowed to have the assistance and services of a Mackenzie friend in children cases. In one case, the court had not allowed confidential documents to be disclosed to the friend.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Doffman and Another ChD 11-Oct-2010
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165284
Vallee v France: ECHR 26 Apr 1994
Zumtobel v Austria: ECHR 21 Sep 1993
The Zumtobel partnership objected to the compulsory purchase of their farming land to build the L52 by-pass road in the Austrian Vorarlberg. The appropriate Government committee heard their objections but confirmed the order. They appealed to an administrative court which said that the Government had taken proper matters into account and that it was not entitled to substitute its decision for that of the administrative authority. They complained to the Commission and the European court that, as the administrative court could not ‘independently assess the merits and the facts of the case’, it did not have ‘full jurisdiction’ within the meaning of the Albert and Le Compte formula.
Held: It is not always necessary to have a review of the merits of a policy decision for the procedure to be held to be fair. The court’s jurisdiction was sufficient in the circumstances of the case, ‘[r]egard being had to the respect which must be accorded to decisions taken by the administrative authorities on grounds of expediency and to the nature of the complaints made by the Zumtobel partnership’.
Citations:
12235/86, [1994] 17 EHRR 116, [1993] ECHR 41, [1993] ECHR 41
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – MB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165274
Kroon And Others v The Netherlands: ECHR 27 Oct 1994
Neither marriage nor living together were necessarily a requirement for establishing family ties, exceptionally other factors may . . serve to demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto ‘family ties’. The relationship between a man and a woman amounted to family life, even though they chose neither to marry nor to live together, because they had a stable relationship which had produced four children.
Judges:
R Ryssdal P
Citations:
18535/91, (1995) 19 EHRR 263, [1994] ECHR 35, [1995] 2 FCR 28
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Cited – Singh v Entry Clearance Officer New Delhi CA 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, an 8 year old boy, became part of his Indian family who lived in England, through an adoption recognised in Indian Law, but not in English Law. Though the adoption was genuine, his family ties had not been broken in India. The family . .
Cited – In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) FD 3-Oct-2014
Extension of Time for Parental Order
The court considered the making of a parental order in respect of a child through surrogacy procedures outside the time limits imposed by the 2008 Act. The child had been born under Indian surrogacy laws. The commissioning parents (now the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165340
Costello-Roberts v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Mar 1993
‘Slippering’, a punishment by hitting a child with a slipper, when used as part of school discipline was not a degrading punishment under the convention. Conduct must attain a minimum level of severity to engage the operation of the Convention.
Citations:
Independent 26-Mar-1993, 13134/87, (1993) 19 EHRR 112, [1993] ECHR 16
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 13
Cited by:
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 – 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 – Countryside Alliance and others v HM Attorney General and others Admn 29-Jul-2005
The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165258
Fredin v Sweden (No 2): ECHR 23 Feb 1994
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
18928/91, [1994] ECHR 5
Links:
Human Rights, Land
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165308
Raimondo v Italy: ECHR 22 Feb 1994
The applicant was arrested and placed under house arrest on charges relating to his association with the Mafia. As an interim measure some of his property was seized. The proceedings ended in his acquittal. He claimed that the seizure of his property was a violation of his rights under A1P1.
Held: His complaint was dismissed.The procedure was ‘not comparable to a criminal sanction because it was designed to prevent the commission of offences.’ It followed that the proceedings concerning the supervision did not involve the determination of a criminal charge, and article 6 did not apply. The seizure, as a provisional measure intended to ensure that property which appeared to be the fruit of unlawful activities carried out to the detriment of the community could subsequently be confiscated if necessary, was justified by the general interest. In view of the extremely dangerous economic power of an organisation like the Mafia, it could not be said that taking the step of seizing the property at an early stage of the proceedings was disproportionate to the aim pursued. There was an additional complaint that the property was not only seized but confiscated. However, the confiscation order was rescindable and had in fact been rescinded. In practical terms it entailed no additional restriction to the seizure, and therefore the respondent state was held not to have overstepped the margin of appreciation available to it.
Citations:
[1994] ECHR 3, 12954/87, (1994) 18 EHRR 237
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited by:
Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Durham Constabulary and Another HL 17-Mar-2005
The appellant, a boy aged 15, had been warned as to admitted indecent assaults on girls. He complained that it had not been explained to him that the result would be that his name would be placed on the sex offenders register. The Chief Constable . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 26-Oct-2011
Civil recovery orders had been made against the applicant. He had been accused and acquitted of drug trafficking allegations in Europe, but the judge had been persuaded that he had no proper explanation for the accumulation of his wealth, and had . .
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.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165291
Hadjianastassiou v Greece: ECHR 16 Dec 1992
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; No violation of Art. 10; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1992] ECHR 78, 12945/87
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165236
Lombardo v Italy: ECHR 26 Nov 1992
Herczegfalvy v Austria: ECHR 24 Sep 1992
The applicant was detained in an institution for mentally deranged offenders. While so detained he was subjected to the forcible administration of food and neuroleptics and to handcuffing to a security bed. He complained of violation of his Article 3 and 8 rights. One of his complaints was as to interference with his correspondence.
Held: It is for medical authorities to decide, on recognised medical standards to be used, in teatment, if necessary by force, to preserve the physical and mental health of patients who are entirely incapable of deciding for themselves and for whom they are responsible, such patients nevertheless remain under the protection of Article 3, the requirements of which permit no derogation. The established principles of medicine are in principle decisive in such cases; a method which is a therapeutic necessity cannot be regarded as inhuman or degrading. The court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist.
Here however the patient succeeded in his complaint about interference by the hospital with his private mail. ‘These vaguely worded provisions do not specify the scope or conditions of exercise of the discretionary power which was at the origin of the measures complained of. But such specifications appear all the more necessary in the field of detention in psychiatric institutions in that the persons concerned are frequently at the mercy of the medical authorities, so that their correspondence is their only contact with the outside world. Admittedly, as the court has previously stated, it would scarcely be possible to formulate a law to cover every eventuality. For all that, in the absence of any detail at all as to the kind of restrictions permitted or their purpose, duration and extent, or the arrangements for their review, the above provisions do not offer a minimum of degree of protection against arbitrariness required by the rule of law in a democratic society. According to the information provided to the Court, there has been no case law to remedy this state of affairs. There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.’
Citations:
10533/83, [1992] ECHR 58, (1992) 15 EHRR 437, [1992] ECHR 83
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (N) v Dr M and Others CA 6-Dec-2002
The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary.
Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The . .
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – PS, Regina (on the Application of) v Responsible Medical Officer, Dr G and others Admn 10-Oct-2003
The claimant had been compulsorily detained under the Act. He complained that the detention and compulsory medication infringed his rights, and amongst other things breached his religious beliefs.
Held: This was an exceptional case requiring . .
Cited – Murray v The Parole Board Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2003
The applicant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had twice previously been released on licence and had his licence revoked. His tarriff had expired The period between reviews of his detention had been two years, but . .
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as . .
Cited – Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine ECHR 5-Apr-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violations of Art. 3 (on account of torture and degrading treatment); Violation of Art. 5-1 (c); Violations of Art. 5-3 (on account of the lack of prompt judicial . .
Cited – B, Regina (on the Application Of) v SS (Responsible Medical Officer) and others CA 26-Jan-2006
The applicant had been detained after a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder and convictions for rape. He had applied for discharge, but before the hearing the doctor had said he no longer opposed his release. After the hearing but before being . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another QBD 29-Oct-2008
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 29-Oct-2008
The applicant said that the defendant had unlawfully failed to provide detailed guidance under section 10 of the 1985 Act, on the circumstances under which a prosecution might lie of a person performing acts which might assist another to commit . .
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Juhnke v Turkey ECHR 13-May-2008
Medical treatment, may well be experienced as degrading by a patient who is subjected to it against his will, but ‘A measure which is therapeutically necessary from the point of view of established principles of medicine cannot in principle be . .
Mentioned – In re A (A Child) SC 12-Dec-2012
A woman, X, had made an allegation in confidence she had been sexually assaulted as a child. The court was asked whether that confidence could be overriden to allow an investigation to protect if necessary a child still living with the man. Evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Health
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165217
Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland (Article 50): ECHR 9 Feb 1993
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
12742/87, [1991] ECHR 55, [1993] ECHR 2
Links:
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165232
Hennings v Germany: ECHR 16 Dec 1992
Clooth v Belgium: ECHR 12 Dec 1991
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 71, 12718/87, (1992) 14 EHRR 717
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Clooth v Belgium (Article 50) ECHR 5-Mar-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings . .
Cited – Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others QBD 15-Aug-2017
The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165155
Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Oct 1991
Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s examination of the existence of a risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 at the relevant time must necessarily be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character of this provision and the fact that it enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society making up the Council of Europe.’ As to Article 13 the court concluded: ‘125. It is not in dispute that the English courts are able in asylum cases to review the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant asylum with reference to the same principles of judicial review as considered in the Soering case and to quash a decision in similar circumstances and that they have done so in decided cases. Indeed the courts have stressed their special responsibility to subject administrative decisions in this area to the most anxious scrutiny where an applicant’s life or liberty may be at risk. Moreover, the practice is that an asylum seeker will not be removed from the U.K. until proceedings are complete once he has obtained leave to apply for judicial review. 126. While it is true that there are limitations on the powers of the courts in judicial review proceedings the Court is of the opinion that these powers, exercisable as they are by the highest tribunals in the land, do provide an effective degree of control over the decisions of the administrative authorities in asylum cases and are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 13.’
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 13.
Citations:
13163/87, 13164/87, (1991) 14 EHRR 248, [1991] ECHR 47, 13165/87
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
Applied – Cruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
Appeal from – Vilvarajah and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Oct-1987
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Immigration
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165139
De Geouffre De La Pradelle v France: ECHR 16 Dec 1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1992] ECHR 76, 12964/87
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165235
Pham Hoang v France: ECHR 25 Sep 1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
13191/87, (1992) 16 EHRR 53, [1992] ECHR 61
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Customs and Excise
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165215
Messina v Italy: ECHR 26 Feb 1993
Abdoella v The Netherlands: ECHR 25 Nov 1992
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1992] ECHR 70, 12728/87
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165225
Edwards v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the defence. One of the police witnesses said that no fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, whereas in fact two fingerprints were found which later turned out to be those of the next door neighbour who was a regular visitor to the house.
Held: There was a prosecution failure to disclose relevant information, but no PII issue had been raised. The omission was held to have been rectified by the appeal process. Article 6.1 requires the prosecution to disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused.
‘it is a requirement of fairness under Article 1 . . that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused.’
Whether a failure of disclosure has resulted in a breach of article 6(1) has to be considered in the light of the proceedings as a whole, including the decisions of appellate courts.
Citations:
13071/87, Times 21-Jan-1991, (1993) 15 EHRR 417, [1992] ECHR 77
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 1 6.1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Dowsett v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The applicant had been convicted along with others of a murder. He now alleged that the police had refused to disclose evidence which would have supported his defence. Some had been disclosed but some still withheld on public interest grounds by the . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Cited – Alistair Mcleod v Her Majesty’s Advocate (No 2) HCJ 19-Dec-1997
A full court applied the guidance in Edwards -v- United Kingdom when considering the duty of the Crown to make disclosure under Scots law: ‘Our system of criminal procedure therefore proceeds on the basis that the Crown have a duty at any time to . .
Cited – Sinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Cited – Stretford v The Football Association Ltd and Another CA 21-Mar-2007
The claimant was a football player’s agent. The licensing scheme required disputes, including disciplinary procedures, to be referred to arbitration. He denied that the rule had been incorporated in the contract. He also complained that the . .
Cited – Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Doffman and Another ChD 11-Oct-2010
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Cited – Dodds v Regina CACD 31-May-2002
The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine.
Held: The court set out the minimum requirements . .
Cited – Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165234
Ezelin v France: ECHR 26 Apr 1991
The free speech of protesters should not be curtailed simply because of the unlawful behaviour of one or two individuals. The court considered that ‘that the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly – in this instance a demonstration that had not been prohibited – is of such importance that it cannot be restricted in any way, even for an avocat, so long as the person concerned does not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion.’
A refusal to give evidence was an issue ‘which in itself does not come within the ambit of Articles 10 and 11’.
Judges:
R. Ryssdal, P
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 29, 11800/85, (1992) 14 EHRR 362
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Huma Rights 10
Cited by:
Cited – Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 28-Jul-2006
Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The . .
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. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165118
Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti v Italy: ECHR 27 Feb 1992
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 award – Convention proceedings; Interest – claim rejected
Citations:
13301/87, [1992] ECHR 24
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165172
Editions Periscope v France: ECHR 26 Mar 1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1992] ECHR 43, 11760/85, [1992] ECHR 43
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165193
Pfeifer And Plankl v Austria: ECHR 25 Feb 1992
Two of the judges who had acted in Mr Pfeifer’s case also presided at his trial, despite a clear provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure disqualifying them. The Commission dealt with whether the court was ‘established by law’ separately from whether it was ‘impartial’ and held that it was not. The Court held that the two complaints coincided: the court was not established by law because of the disqualification which national law had imposed so as to remove all reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of trial courts. Hence there was a breach of Article 6(1) (and there had not been an effective waiver of the applicant’s rights). In order to be effective, a waiver must be made without undue compulsion, and the consent must be an informed one. Regard must be had to the character or nature of the right when a decision is made as to whether the person was given sufficient information about that right for him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he should waive it.
Citations:
(1992) 14 EHRR 692, 10802/84, [1992] ECHR 2
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Fawdry and Co (A Firm) v Murfitt CA 14-May-2002
The judge at first instance who was ticketed to sit as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, had been asked to sit as a judge of the High Court to take this case. The appellant said she was acting outside her powers.
Held: The . .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – Stretford v The Football Association Ltd and Another CA 21-Mar-2007
The claimant was a football player’s agent. The licensing scheme required disputes, including disciplinary procedures, to be referred to arbitration. He denied that the rule had been incorporated in the contract. He also complained that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Administrative, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165154
Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Nov 1991
The newspapers challenged orders preventing their publication of extracts of the ‘Spycatcher’ book.
Held: The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest. ‘[T]he dangers inherent in prior restraint are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest.’
Citations:
13585/88, [1991] 14 EHRR 153, [1991] ECHR 49, [1991] ECHR 1385
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Douglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y FD 24-Nov-2005
Application was made by the claimant for orders discharging an order made in 1991 to protect the identity of children and social workers embroiled in allegations of satanic sex abuse. The defendant opposed disclosure of the names of two social . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jan-2012
The first applicant had been chairman of a jury and had expressed his concerns about their behaviour to the second applicant who published them. They were prosecuted under the 1981 Act. They had said that no details of the deliberations had been . .
Cited – Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jan-2012
The first applicant had been chairman of a jury and had expressed his concerns about their behaviour to the second applicant who published them. They were prosecuted under the 1981 Act. They had said that no details of the deliberations had been . .
Cited – Core Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Media
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165137
Borgers v Belgium: ECHR 30 Oct 1991
Hudoc The Court reconsidered the nature of the involvement of the Procureur general’s department in decisions taken by the Belgian Cour de Cassation. The Court sitting in plenary session reached, by a majority, a decision which effectively reversed Delcourt. In doing so the majority observed that the rights of the defence and the principle of equality of arms had: ‘undergone a considerable evaluation in the Court’s case-law, notably in respect of the importance attached to appearances and to the increased sensitivity of the public to the fair administration of justice.’ The Court re-analysed the facts and concluded that the prosecution was unfair in circumstances where the advocate general intervened at the hearing in a manner adverse to an appellant. This was because an appellant had no right of reply and might reasonably think, when the advocate general retired with the Court, that he would further urge that the appeal should be dismissed.
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 46, 12005/86, (1993) 15 EHRR 92
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Not followed – Delcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .
Cited by:
Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165121
Cooperativa Parco Cuma v Italy: ECHR 27 Feb 1992
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 award – Convention proceedings; Interest – claim rejected
Citations:
12145/86, [1992] ECHR 17
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165185
Simonetti v Italy: ECHR 3 Dec 1991
Owners’ Services Ltd v Italy: ECHR 28 Jun 1991
E v Norway: ECHR 29 Aug 1990
The applicant suffered serious brain damage and was an untreatable psychopath. He was convicted of numerous violent offences and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He was also sentenced to preventive detention under the Norwegian Penal Code, as result of which he was detained in mental hospitals. The effect of this sentence was to enable the Ministry of Justice to monitor his progress and to release or detain him when this would prove appropriate. It gave the ministry a wide discretion in deciding which of various possible security measures was to be imposed and for how long. The court observed that this system shared a number of features with the Belgian system in regard to recidivists and habitual offenders which was at issue in the Van Droogenbroeck case: ‘Under such systems the courts cannot at the time of their decisions do more than assess how the person concerned will develop in the future. The authorities, on the other hand, through and with the assistance of their officers, can monitor that development more closely and at frequent intervals.’ There remained a risk that time the link between the ministry’s decision not to release or to re-detain and the initial judgment might be broken with the result that it would be transformed into a deprivation of liberty that was arbitrary.
Citations:
11701/85, (1994) 17 EHRR 30, [1990] ECHR 17
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 25-Oct-2012
The claimant was a prisoner released on a home detention licence, but his licence had been revoked. He now said that the way it had been revoked, without the respondent’s decision being subject to confirmation by the Parole Board, nor to other . .
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.
Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165080
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 detention which is laid down in Article 5(1)(c). The court agrees with the Commission and the government that having a ‘reasonable suspicion’ presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as ‘reasonable’ will however depend upon all the circumstances.’
As to the duty to inform a suspect about the reason and purpose of hs arrest: ‘Paragraph (2) of Article 5 contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This protection is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph (2) any person arrested must be told in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph (4). Whilst this information must be conveyed ‘promptly’ (in French: ‘dans le plus court delai’), it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the information conveyed were sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features.’
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-2; Violation of Art. 5-5; Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4 and 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
Citations:
12244/86, 12245/86, (1990) 13 EHRR 157, [1990] ECHR 18, 12383/86
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5(2)
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Cumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police CA 17-Dec-2003
The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each . .
Cited – Taylor (A Child Proceeding By his Mother and Litigation Friend C M Taylor) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 6-Jul-2004
The Chief Constable appealed aganst a finding that his officers had wrongfully arrested and imprisoned the claimant. The claimant was 10 years old when arrested, and complained that the officers had not properly advised him of the nature and purpose . .
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police CA 14-Feb-2001
Where a constable arrested someone based upon information on the police national computer, he was not to be held accountable for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, if the information upon which that had in turn been based, did not justify the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
See Also – Fox, Campbell And Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Mar-1991
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) – Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient. . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Cited – McCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
Cited – Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jul-2016
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Police, Torts – Other
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165079
Alimena v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 5, 11910/85
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165092
Triggiani v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 20, 13509/88
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165100
Delta v France: ECHR 19 Dec 1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d; Damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected
Citations:
[1990] ECHR 30, 11444/85, (1990) 16 EHRR 574
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165087
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 discretionary life sentence in English law was composed of a punitive element followed by a security element giving the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner’s release. In these cases the punitive period had expired and the applicants were entitled to judicial control as guaranteed by Article 5(4). The detention of the applicants after the expiry of the punitive periods of their sentences was compared to the VAN DROOGENBROECK and WEEKS cases: the factors of mental instability and dangerousness are susceptible to change over the passage of time and new issues of lawfulness may arise in the course of detention. It follows that at this phase in the execution of their sentences, the applicants are entitled under Article 5(4) to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their continued detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals and to have the lawfulness of any re-detention determined by a court.
Judges:
Mr R Ryssdal, P
Citations:
11787/85, 11978/86, (1990) 13 EHRR 666, 12009/86, [1990] ECHR 29, (1991) 13 EHRR 666
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
Citing:
Cited – Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium ECHR 24-Jun-1982
The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for theft. He had a previous convictions and was thought to have a persistent tendency to crime, and was placed at the government’s disposal for 10 years on that ground. This was subject to . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Neil Grant Murray, Mark James Hartley and Steven Simpson v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 19-Sep-1999
The defendants appealed against sentence. The first and second were youths who had been convicted of a vicious and homophobic murder, and had been sentenced to be detained without limit of time. The third had also been convicted of a savage and . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 9-Mar-1999
The appellant pleaded guilty to an assault with a knife upon a stranger. He had a previous conviction for assault causing severe injury and permanent disfigurement, and two previous convictions for inter alia attempted murder and assault. He had . .
Cited – Ansari v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant assaulted and abducted an innocent passer-by, a young woman of 23, in the streets of Aberdeen and drove her, bound and gagged, to his house in Leith where he stripped her naked and assaulted and raped her. He was sentenced to life . .
Cited – Mohammadi v Advocate General Scotland HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant had claimed asylum. His claim had been rejected and an order made for repatriation to Iran. His appeal was lodged two days out of time. He appealed its rejection. The solicitors accepted full responsibility for the delay.
Held: . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Flynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 18-Mar-2004
PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Blackstock v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jun-2005
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 . .
Mentioned – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165090
Mats Jacobsson v Sweden: ECHR 28 Jun 1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
11309/84, [1990] ECHR 14
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165062
Fredin v Sweden: ECHR 18 Feb 1991
A gravel pit licence was revoked without compensation pursuant to legislation brought in after the owner had acquired the pit but before it had begun to exploit it. The actual revocation took place after the pit had been exploited for a number of years, but the owner had known that its future was uncertain because of the possibility of revocation. It contended that it should have had more time in which to close down and that it had made investments which should have been allowed to be more fully exploited.
Held: The time given was reasonable. Disputes under planning rules could affect civil rights to build on the applicant’s land. Signatory states enjoy a wide ‘margin of appreciation’ in this area relating to the control of the use of land in the public interest for environmental reasons, and that the controls prescribed or interferences involved must be without any reasonable foundation if the court is to regard them as disproportionate.
Citations:
[1991] 13 EHRR 784, 12033/86, [1991] ECHR 2
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights P-1 A-1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Fisher and Another v English Nature Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the . .
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Environment, Planning
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165084
Ficara v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Hudoc 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
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 10, 12176/86
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165094
Mori v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Hudoc 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
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 16, 13552/88
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165081
Koendjbiharie v The Netherlands: ECHR 25 Oct 1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Unsuccessful proceedings brought by the applicant to challenge his detention in a state psychiatric clinic had taken four months to be completed, the period allowed under domestic law being three months.
Held: It is for the public authority responsible for making the determination to justify the delay: ‘On the face of it, a lapse of time of more than four months appears incompatible with the notion of speediness. This impression is strengthened by the fact that, when amending national law, the Dutch legislature set at three months the period exceptionally available to a court which, like the Court of Appeal in this case, is considering the possibility, after a first hearing, of refusing the extension, but deems it necessary to obtain additional information.
A more detailed study of the facts of the case does not dispel this impression: quite the contrary. The Court of Appeal was evidently not slow to initiate the examination of the application – lodged on 17 May, the court considered it on 4 June – but it is legitimate to question its decision to adjourn the proceedings until 17 August. The Government supplied no information capable of justifying it. Nor did it provide any explanation why the Court of Appeal took more than one month after the hearing to draft a brief order.
The Court, accordingly, finds a failure to comply with the requirement of ‘speediness’ laid down in paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention.’
Judges:
Ryssdal, President
Citations:
11487/85, [1990] ECHR 28, (1991) 13 EHRR 820
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
Cited by:
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 . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Damages
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165088
Letellier v France: ECHR 26 Jun 1991
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
12369/86, [1991] ECHR 35
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165112
Frau v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses – claim rejected
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 11, 12147/86
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165093
Skarby v Sweden: ECHR 28 Jun 1990
Hudoc 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
Citations:
12258/86, [1990] ECHR 16, (1990) 13 EHRR 90
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165063
Colacioppo v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 8, 13593/88
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165082
Moustaquim v Belgium: ECHR 18 Feb 1991
The applicant was a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium in 1965 when he was aged under 2. In 1984, nineteen years later, after a career of juvenile crime, he was deported, but the deportation order was suspended in 1989 and he returned to Belgium. He complained that his deportation had violated his right to private and family life under article 8.
Held: There had been interference by a public authority with his right to family life guaranteed in article 8(1) and that this was not justified under article 8(2). The Court rejected a complaint under article 14, holding that the applicant’s position could not be compared with that of Belgian juveniles, since they had a right of abode in their own country and could not be expelled from it.
‘. . the court would reiterate that article 14 safeguards individuals placed in similar situations from any discriminatory differences of treatment in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised in the Convention . . In the instant case the applicant cannot be compared to Belgian juvenile delinquents. The latter have a right of abode in their own country and cannot be expelled from it . .
As for the preferential treatment given to nationals of the other member states of the Communities, there is objective and reasonable justification for it as Belgium belongs, together with those states, to a special legal order.’
Citations:
12313/86, (1991) 13 EHRR 802, [1991] ECHR 3
Links:
Statutes:
European Cnvention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
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 . .
Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165085
Mccallum v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Aug 1990
Viezzer v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991
Autronic Ag v Switzerland: ECHR 22 May 1990
Kamasinski v Austria: ECHR 19 Dec 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1989] ECHR 24, 9783/82
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165058
F v Switzerland: ECHR 18 Dec 1987
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 12; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
A Swiss law placed limitations on the remarriage of someone who had been the guilty party in previous divorce proceedings.
Held: The Court explained that the closing words in Article 12 (‘according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right’ ) confer only a limited power on states. In all the Council of Europe’s member States, these ‘limitations’ appear as conditions and are embodied in procedural or substantive rules. The former relate mainly to publicity and the solemnisation of marriage, while the latter relate primarily to capacity, consent and certain impediments’. The court recognized that the national law sought to promote stability in marriage, but ‘the disputed measure, which affected the very essence of the right to marry, was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.’ National laws: ‘must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired.
In all the Council of Europe’s member States, these ‘limitations’ appear as conditions and are embodied in procedural or substantive rules. The former relate mainly to publicity and the solemnisation of marriage, while the latter relate primarily to capacity, consent and certain impediments.’
Citations:
(1987) 10 EHRR 411, 11329/85, [1987] ECHR 32
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 12
Cited by:
Cited – B And L v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Sep-2005
The claimants said that UK law was inconsistent in its treatment of marriage between in-laws, since it provided that it was available only by means of a private Act of parliament.
Held: The provision was irrational and infringed the human . .
Cited – Baiai and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Apr-2006
The respondent brought in laws restricting marriages between persons subject to immigration control, requiring those seeking non Church of England marriages to first obtain a certificate from the defendant that the marriage was approved. The . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Baiai and others CA 23-May-2007
The claimants challenged rules which meant that certain immigrants subject to immigration control were unable to marry, save only those marrying according to the rites of the Church of England.
Held: The rules were not justified by evidence . .
Cited – Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2008
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Family
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165008
Schenk v Switzerland: ECHR 12 Jul 1988
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about the admissibility of evidence in the abstract or to deal with them as issues of principle. Article 6 simply guarantees the right to a fair trial and that admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation under national law. The Court added: ‘The Court therefore cannot exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence of the present kind may be admissible. It has only to ascertain whether Mr Schenk’s trial as a whole was fair.’
The Court noted that the rights of the defence were respected: the applicant had the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the recording and of opposing its use. The defence had been able to secure an investigation of the background of the relevant witness and could have examined him in court. In addition, the Court attached weight to the fact that the recording was not the only evidence on which the applicant’s conviction was based and that the domestic court had expressly said that it had relied on evidence, other than the recording, which pointed to the applicant’s guilt.
Rules about the admissibility of evidence are for the contracting states: ‘While article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law. The court therefore cannot exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence of the present kind may be admissible. It has only to ascertain whether Mr Schenk’s trial as a whole was fair.’
Citations:
10862/84, [1988] ECHR 17, (1988) 13 EHRR 242
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 6.2 8
Cited by:
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
Cited – Regina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
Cited – Regina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v P SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution.
Held: The admission of the . .
Cited – Regina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165011
Gaskin v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Jul 1989
The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied.
Held: The refusal to allow him access to his records involved a breach of his rights under Article 8, because there was no independent mechanism for determining whether or not access should be permitted where the consent of third party contributors could not be obtained. The Court emphasised the need for specific justification for preventing individuals from having access to information which forms part of their private and family life. Relationships between children and foster parents or carers fall within the definition of ‘family’ within the meaning of Article 8.
The Court rejected any claim under article 10 ‘in the circumstances of the case’ for essentially the same reason as it had in Leander, which it followed.
However, the court rejected a submission that Article 10 provided the applicant with a right of access to social services care records concerning periods of his childhood spent in foster care, saying: ‘The Court holds, as it did in Leander v. Sweden, that ‘the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him.’ Also in the circumstances of this case, Article 10 does not embody an obligation on the State concerned to impart the information in question to the individual.
There has thus been no interference with Mr Gaskin’s right to receive information as protected by Article 10.’
Judges:
R Ryssdal, P
Citations:
10454/83, [1990] 1 FLR 167, [1989] ECHR 13, (1989) 12 EHRR 36
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Applied – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
At Court of Appeal – Gaskin v Liverpool City Council CA 1980
The plaintiff, who had been in the care of the respondent authority as a child, brought proceedings against the local authority for negligence in their care of him. His application for disclosure of the case notes and records of his period in care . .
Cited by:
Cited – Durant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Cited – Brown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
Cited – G v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
Cited – Kennedy v Charity Commission CA 20-Mar-2012
The claimant sought disclosure of an investigation conducted by the respondent. The respondent replied that the material was exempt within section 32(2). The court had found that that exemption continued permanently even after the inquiry was . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Cited – Durham County Council v Dunn CA 13-Dec-2012
The claimant wished to begin a claim alleging historic sexual abuse while he had been at an institution run by the defendants. The claimant sought pre-trial disclosure of various documents and the court now considered the principle applicable, and . .
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 . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Family, Information
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165046
Powell and Rayner v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Feb 1990
The applicants complained of the noise generated by Heathrow Airport saying that it affected their human rights to enjoy their private life and possessions.
Held: Whether the case was analysed in terms of a positive duty on the state to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants’ rights under paragraph (1) of Article 8 or in terms of an ‘interference by a public authority’ to be justified in accordance with paragraph (2), the applicable principles are broadly similar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the state enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention. Where an authority carries on an undertaking in the interest of the community as a whole it may have to pay compensation to individuals whose rights are infringed by that undertaking in order to achieve a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the community.
Citations:
9310/81, [1990] 12 EHRR 355, [1990] ECHR 2
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8(1)
Cited by:
Cited – Hatton and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Oct-2001
The appellants claimed that the licence of over-flying from Heathrow at night, by making sleep difficult, infringed their rights to a family life. The times restricting over-flying had been restricted. The applicants’ complaints fell within a . .
Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Cited – Lough and others v First Secretary of State Bankside Developments Ltd CA 12-Jul-2004
The appellants challenged the grant of planning permission for neighbouring land. They sought to protect their own amenities and the Tate Modern Gallery.
Held: The only basis of the challenge was under article 8. Cases established of a breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165055
Norris v Ireland: ECHR 26 Oct 1988
A homosexual man complained that the criminalisation of homosexual conduct in Ireland violated his article 8 right to respect for his private life, although he accepted that the risk of being prosecuted was remote.
Held: The court accepted that he was a victim. Even an administrative policy of not prosecuting for the offence in question would not have made a difference.
Citations:
10581/83, (1989) 13 EHRR 186, [1988] ECHR 22, [1985] ECHR 13
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Adams and Others v Lord Advocate IHCS 31-Jul-2002
(Opinion) The applicants challenged the introduction of restrictions of hunting by foxes, arguing that the law would infringe their human rights.
Held: The Act was not infringing. Fox hunting as such was not a private activity protected by the . .
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Discrimination
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165027
Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain: ECHR 6 Dec 1988
ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused.
Citations:
10590/83, (1988) 11 EHRR 360, [1988] ECHR 25
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165022
Ciulla v Italy: ECHR 22 Feb 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, estoppel); Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-5; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient
Citations:
11152/84, [1989] ECHR 2
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165021
Eriksson v Sweden: ECHR 22 Jun 1989
Langborger v Sweden: ECHR 22 Jun 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The involvement of two lay assessors, who were appointed by the Landlord’s Association and by the Tenant’s Association violated Article 6 as both those two bodies had interests in the outcome of the applicant’s case, which were contrary to the interests of the applicant.
Citations:
11179/84, (1990) 12 EHRR 416, [1989] ECHR 11
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – PD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165032
Woukam Moudefo v France: ECHR 11 Oct 1988
Bricmont v Belgium: ECHR 7 Jul 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1989] ECHR 12, 10857/84
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165048
Allan Jacobsson v Sweden: ECHR 25 Oct 1989
‘According to the Court’s case law, this provision comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions; and the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three rules are not distinct in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule.’
Citations:
10842/84, [1989] 12 EHRR 56, [1989] ECHR 18
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights P1 A1
Citing:
Distinguished – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .
Cited by:
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature QBD 6-Feb-2004
The claimant owned land which contained a canal. After disuse it had become subject an order declaring it a site of special scientific intrest. The owner complained that this removed his right to develop uses of the land and infringed his human . .
Cited – Trailer and Marina (Leven) Ltd, Regina (ex parte) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that the 1981 Act, as amended, interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its possession, namely a stretch of canal which had been declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, with the effect that it was unusable. . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165043
H v Belgium: ECHR 30 Nov 1987
Hudoc 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
It is for domestic law to determine the extent and content of a person’s civil rights.
Citations:
(1987) 10 EHRR 339, 8950/80, (1987) 10 EHRR 339, [1987] ECHR 30
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Kehoe CA 5-Mar-2004
The claimant had applied to the Child Support Agncy for maintenance. They failed utterly to obtain payment, and she complained now that she was denied the opportunity by the 1991 Act to take court proceedings herself.
Held: The denial of . .
Cited – Kehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165010
Colak v Germany: ECHR 6 Dec 1988
Obermeier v Austria: ECHR 28 Jun 1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1990] ECHR 15, 11761/85, (1991) 13 EHRR 290
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165061
Brozicek v Italy: ECHR 19 Dec 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-a; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
[1989] ECHR 23, 10964/84
Links:
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165057
Union Alimentaria Sanders S A v Spain: ECHR 7 Jul 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Citations:
11681/85, [1989] ECHR 16, [1989] ECHR 16
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165049
Bezicheri v Italy: ECHR 25 Oct 1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses – claim rejected
Citations:
11400/85, (1990) 12 EHRR 210, [1989] ECHR 19
Links:
Cited by:
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.
Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165044