The Court considered the duties imposed on housing authorities under Part VII of the 1996 Act.
Held: Article 6.1 did apply, but in any event the procedure applied under the Act conformed to its requirements.
Judges:
Guido Raimondi, P
Citations:
40378/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)), [2015] ECHR 924, [2015] HLR 46, (2016) 63 EHRR 20
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights, Housing Act 1996 193
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – 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 by:
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Housing
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.554348
