Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, lack of jurisdiction); Violation of Art. 6-1 (independent and impartial tribunal); Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
There could be no breach of article 14 where the law concerned provided that ‘people who commit terrorist offences . . will be treated less favourably with regard to automatic parole than persons convicted under the ordinary law’, because ‘the distinction is made not between different groups of people, but between different types of offence.’
[1999] ECHR 46, 24919/94
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 14
Human Rights
Cited by:
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 – Stott, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 28-Nov-2018
The prisoner was subject to an extended determinate sentence (21 years plus 4) for 10 offences of rape. He complained that as such he would only be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of his sentence rather than one third, and said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.165728