Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Human Rights - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 71 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015.

 
Delcourt -v- Belgium 2689/65; [1970] ECHR 1; (1970) 1 EHRR 355; [1970] ECHR 1
17 Jan 1970
ECHR

Human Rights
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 because a member of the Procureur général's department, which was attached to the Cour de Cassation, had retired with the Court to consider the result of the appeal. The Procureur général's department plays an active role in prosecuting criminal offences. This was true of the lower courts in Belgium. Held: This might also appear to be the case to litigants in the Cour de Cassation: "And one may imagine that such litigants can have a feeling of inequality if, after hearing a member of the Procureur général's department at the Court of Cassation make, in open court, final submissions unfavourable to their pleas, they see him withdraw with the judges to attend the deliberations held in the privacy of chambers." However it had to `make a careful examination of the real position and functions of the Procureur général's department attached to the Cour de Cassation' - p.368. This disclosed that, unusually, the Procureur général's department did not adopt an adversarial role at that court, but performed a neutral advisory function which might lead it to intervene in favour of an appellant as readily as against him. The complainant's concerns were understood, but "The preceding considerations are of a certain importance which must not be underestimated. If one refers to the dictum `justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done', these considerations may allow doubts to arise about the satisfactory nature of the system in dispute. They do not, however, amount to proof of a violation of the right to a fair hearing. Looking behind appearances, the Court does not find the realities of the situation to be in any way in conflict with this right." The question of how equality of arms can be achieved between a defendant and prosecutor when a witness is to be protected is what, if anything, the court needs to do to ensure that the defendant is not at a substantial disadvantage compared with the prosecution and any other defendants. That can only be judged on a case by case basis at trial and on appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
In re De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp -v- Belgium 2832/66; 2899/66; 2835/66; (1970) 1 EHRR 373; [1970] ECHR 2
18 Nov 1970
ECHR
Sir Humphrey Waldock, President, Mm. G. Balladore Pallieri R. Cassin Å. E. V. Holmbäck A. Verdross H. Rolin E. Rodenbourg A. N. C. Ross T. Wold H. Mosler M. Zekia A. Favre J. Cremona G. Wiarda S. Sigurjónsson
Human Rights
The applicants had been detained under Belgian vagrancy laws. An earlier decision had found that their rights had been infringed because of the lack of effective means for them to challenge their detention. The Belgian government said that the applicants had not exhausted their national remedies. Held: The complaints were admissible. Later changes in Belgian law could not change the situation which had applied at the time, but could provide for later compensation, and therefore the claims were rejected. Article 5.4 did not entitle a person detained to take proceedings to challenge detention when that detention was pursuant to an order of a court.
"At first sight, the wording of Article 5(4) might make one think that it guarantees the right of the detainee always to have supervised by a court the lawfulness of a previous decision which has deprived him of his liberty... Where the decision depriving a person of his liberty is one taken by an administrative body, there is no doubt that Article 5(4) obliges the contracting states to make available to the person detained the right to recourse to a court; there is nothing to indicate that the same applies when the decision is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings. In the latter case, the supervision required by Article 5 (4) is incorporated in the decision, for example, where a sentence of imprisonment is pronounced after "conviction by a competent court" (Article 5(1) (a) of the Convention)."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez -v- Government of Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987; [1971] 2 All ER 691
1971
HL
Lord Diplock
Human Rights, Police
The court considered the degree of risk to an individual which should give rise to a duty on the police to protect him under article 2. Held: Lord Diplock said: "My Lords, bearing in mind the relative gravity of the consequences of the court's expectation being falsified either in one way or in the other, I do not think that the test of the applicability of paragraph (c) is that the court must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the fugitive will be detained or restricted if he is returned. A lesser degree of likelihood is, in my view, sufficient; and I would not quarrel with the way in which the test was stated by the magistrate or with the alternative way in which it was expressed by the Divisional Court. 'A reasonable chance,' 'substantial grounds for thinking,' 'a serious possibility' - I see no significant difference between these various ways of describing the degree of likelihood of the detention or restriction of the fugitive on his return which justifies the court in giving effect to the provisions of section 4(1)(c). Instead of too close a calculation, the court should consider the words 'applying, untrammelled by semantics, principles of common sense and common humanity."
European Convention on Human Rights - Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 4(1)(c)
1 Citers


 
De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp -v- Belgium 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66; (1971) 1 EHRR 373; [1970] ECHR 2; [1971] ECHR 1; [1972] ECHR 1
18 Jun 1971
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
Hudoc Preliminary objection partially allowed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
The possibility of a detainee being heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation is a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty: "At first sight, the wording of article 5(4) might make one think that it guarantees the right of the detainee always to have supervised by a court the lawfulness of a previous decision which has deprived him of his liberty . . Where the decision depriving a person of his liberty is one taken by an administrative body, there is no doubt that article 5(4) obliges the contracting states to make available to the person detained a right of recourse to a court; but there is nothing to indicate that the same applies when the decision is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings. In the latter case, the supervision required by article 5(4) is incorporated in the decision; this is so, for example, where a sentence of imprisonment is pronounced after 'conviction by a competent court' (article 5(1)(a) of the Convention)."
European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Ringeisen -v- Austria 2614/65; [1971] ECHR 2; (1971) 1 EHRR 455; [1968] ECHR 7; [1972] ECHR 2; [1973] ECHR 1
16 Jul 1971
ECHR

Human Rights
The Austrian District and Regional Real Property Transactions Commission refused to approve the sale of a number of plots of land. The applicant challenged the refusal alleging bias and contending that his article 6 rights were violated for that reason. The Austrian statute provided that the refusal of approval rendered the sale null and void. Held: "In the present case, when Ringeisen purchased property from the Roth couple, he had a right to have the contract for sale which they had made with him approved if he fulfilled, as he claimed to do, the conditions laid down in the Act. Although it was applying rules of administrative law, the Regional Commission's decision was to be decisive for the relations in civil law ('de caractère civil') between Ringeisen and the Roth couple. This is enough to make it necessary for the court to decide whether or not the proceedings in this case complied with the requirements of article 6(1) of the Convention."
In connection with an article 6 claim: ""For article 6(1) to be applicable to a case ('contestation') it is not necessary that both parties to the proceedings should be private persons, which is the view of the majority of the Commission and of the Government. The wording of article 6(1) is far wider; the French expression 'contestations sur (des) droits et obligations de caractère civil' covers all proceedings the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations. The English text, 'determination of . . civil rights and obligations', confirms this interpretation.
The character of the legislation which governs how the matter is to be determined (civil, commercial, administrative law, etc) and that of the authority which is invested with jurisdiction in the matter (ordinary court, administrative body, etc) are therefore of little consequence."
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 X -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1972 - (1972) 42 CD 135; 5877/72
 
Cases Of De Wilde, Ooms And Versyp ('Vagrancy') -v- Belgium (Article 50) 2832/66;2835/66;2899/66; [1972] ECHR 1
10 Mar 1972
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
X -v- United Kingdom Unreported, 23 March 1972; 5076/71
23 Mar 1972
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
(Commission) The applicant said that having been pressured into pleading guilty: "The Commission examined this complaint under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and also under Article 6(2) (Art. 6-2) of the Convention, which provides that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".
The Commission notes that, under English criminal procedure, if a person pleads guilty there is no trial in the usual sense; if the judge is satisfied that the accused understands the effect of his plea his confession is recorded, and the subsequent proceedings are concerned only with the question of sentence.
The Commission, having examined this practice in the context of English criminal procedures and also the other systems among those States Parties to the Convention where a similar practice is found, is satisfied that the practice as such is not inconsistent with the requirements of Article 6(1) and (2) (Art. 6-1, 6-2) of the Convention. In arriving at this conclusion, the Commission has had regard to the rules under which the practice operates and in particular to the safeguards which are provided to avoid the possibility of abuse."
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers


 
Ringeisen -v- Austria 2614/65; [1972] ECHR 2
22 Jun 1972
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award.
European Convention on Human Rights 86
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
X -v- United Kingdom (Unreported 5 October 1972)
5 Oct 1972
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons, Health
A complaint by a prisoner that as a mentally disordered person he should have been held in a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison was rejected as inadmissible.
1 Citers


 
Kpt -v- The United Kingdom 5229/71; [1972] ECHR 3
5 Oct 1972
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]

 
 East African Asians -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1973 - [1973] 3 EHRR 76
 
Ringeisen -v- Austria 2614/65; [1973] ECHR 1
23 Jun 1973
ECHR

Human Rights
(Interpretation)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
East African Asians -v- United Kingdom 4403/70; [1973] ECHR 2
14 Dec 1973
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]

 
 X -v- Netherlands; ECHR 1974 - (1974) 2 DR 118
 
Neumeister -v- Austria 1936/63; [1974] ECHR 1; [1974] ECHR 1; (1979) 1 EHRR 136; 1936/63
7 May 1974
ECHR
Pallierii P
Human Rights, Prisons, Damages
The applicant complained, inter alia, of the length of time he had spent in detention while on remand from 24 February to 12 May 1961, that is, two months and sixteen days, and from 12 July 1962 to 16 September 1964, that is two years, two months and four days. The Court had found that there had been a breach of Article 5(3) in that his detention had been continued for longer than a reasonable time. He was later convicted and sentenced by the Court in Austria, and the time spent on remand had been deducted in full from the time to be served. The court now considered the damages whoch might be awarded. Held: "Some losses must have followed from the excessive prolongation of the detention in question but it proves very difficult to isolate and unravel them from those which Neumeister and the Scherzinger company would have had to bear in any event. The Court does not find it necessary on this point to embark on additional proceedings. In effect, the time the applicant had spent in detention on remand was reckoned as part of his sentence and, more especially, he was granted remission of the remainder of his sentence". However, in spite of the measures already taken in favour of the applicant in Austria, the damage resulting from the breach of Article 5 (3) "in itself" in addition calls for some element of monetary compensation of which it is for the Court to assess the amount in the light of all the circumstances of the case. Here, the finding of a violation was sufficient to afford just satisfaction. The circumstances of the case included (i) that the detention on remand was justified, and (ii) that the period on remand had been deducted in full from the sentence.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 X -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 20-Dec-1974 - 5442/72
 
Muller -v- Austria 5849/72; (1975) 3 DR 25
1975
ECHR

Human Rights, Benefits
Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of any particular amount, but that the right safeguarded by Article 1 consists, at most, "in being entitled as a beneficiary of the social insurance scheme to any payments made by the fund." A claim to contributory benefits was a "possession" by analogy with the proprietary right of a contributor to a private pension fund.
1 Citers


 
Golder -v- The United Kingdom 4451/70; [1975] 1 EHRR 524; [1975] ECHR 1
21 Feb 1975
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that "in the determination of his civil rights . . everyone is entitled to a fair . . hearing", as requiring a right of access to a solicitor. "Article 6(1) does not state a right of access to the courts or tribunals in express terms. It enunciates rights which are distinct but stem from the same basic idea and which, taken together, make up a single right not specifically defined in the narrower sense of the term. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain, by means of interpretation, whether access to the courts constitutes one factor or aspect of this right . . The principle whereby a civil claim must be capable of being submitted to a judge ranks as one of the universally 'recognised' fundamental principles of law; the same is true of the principle of international law which forbids the denial of justice. Article 6(1) must be read in the light of these principles . . It follows that the right of access constitutes an element which is inherent in the right stated by Article 6(1)."
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Cyprus -v- Turkey Unreported, May 1975; (1976) 4 EHRR 482
1 May 1975


Human Rights
(Commission) Turkey argued that she had not extended her jurisdiction to the island of Cyprus because she had neither annexed a part of the island nor established a military or civil government there. She maintained that the administration of the Turkish Cypriot community had absolute jurisdiction over part of the island. Held: The Commission described the scope of the SAA doctrine: "Nationals of a State, including registered ships and aircrafts, are partly within its jurisdiction wherever they may be, and...authorised agents of a State, including diplomatic or consular agents and armed forces, not only remain under its jurisdiction when abroad but bring any other persons or property 'within the jurisdiction' of that State, to the extent that they exercise authority over such persons or property. Insofar as, by their acts or omissions, they affect such persons or property, the responsibility of the State is engaged." The Commission set out the terms of reference of its future inquiry as necessitating an examination whether Turkey's responsibility under the Convention was engaged "because persons or property in Cyprus have in the course of her military action come under her actual authority and responsibility at the time." and
"It follows that these armed forces are authorised agents of Turkey and that they bring any other persons or property in Cyprus 'within the jurisdiction' of Turkey, in the sense of Art. 1 of the Convention, to the extent that they exercise control over such persons or property. Therefore, insofar as these armed forces, by their acts or omissions affect such persons' rights or freedoms under the Convention, the responsibility of Turkey is engaged."
1 Citers


 
Cyprus -v- Turkey 6780/74; [1975] ECHR 3; 6950/75; (1975) 2 DR 125
26 May 1975
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR (Commission) Article 24 of the Convention : Case referred to the Commission by a Contracting Party.
(a) The applicant Government, as constituted at and since the time of lodging the present applications, are to be considered as representing the Republic of Cyprus for the purpose of proceedings under Art. 24 and 28 of the Convention.
(6) The protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention should not be impaired by any constitutional defect of the applicant Government.
Article 1 of the Convention : The Contracting Parties are bound to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention to all persons under their actual authority and responsibility, whether that authority is exercised within their own territory or abroad.
Article 63 of the Convention : This provision cannot be interpreted as limiting the scope of the term "jurisdiction" in Article I to metropolitan territories.
Article 26 of the Convention : Applicable in cases brought by States. In a troubled situation arising out of a military action, it is for the Respondent State to establish that practicable and effective remedies were available with regard to the complaints mentioned in the application.
Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention : An inter-State application cannot be rejected as being abusive under this provision. Does a general principle exist, according to which the right to bring proceedings before an international instance must not be abused ?
[unresolved).
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hess -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-1975 - DC 138; 6231/73

 
 X -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 3-Oct-1975 - 7096/75
 
National Union of Belgian Police -v- Belgium 4464/70; (1975) 1 EHRR 578; [1975] ECHR 2
27 Oct 1975
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+11
The Belgian Government failed to consult a municipal police union about legislation affecting public sector employment rights. The union's direct claim under article 11 failed, but article 14 was engaged (though on the particular facts the article 14 claim also failed). Article 14 comes into play whenever "the subject-matter of the disadvantage . . constitutes one of the modalities of the exercise of a right guaranteed"
European Convention on Human Rights 11 14
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Agee -v- United Kingdom (1976) 7 DR 164; 7729/76
1976
ECHR

Human Rights
(Commission) The Convention does not create any civil right to nationality or to a right of residence. The Secretary of State had made a deportation order against the applicant, who was a United States citizen, on grounds which included that he had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers. He complained that this infringed a number of his Convention rights, including Article 10. The Commission held that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded, observing: “Art 10(1) of the Convention provides inter alia that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and that this right includes freedom ‘to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority…..’
However, Art 10 does not in itself grant a right of asylum or a right for an alien to stay in a given country. Deportation on security grounds does not therefore as such constitute an interference with the rights guaranteed by Art 10. It follows that an alien’s rights under Art 10 are independent of his right to stay in the country and do not protect this latter right. In the present case the applicant has not, whilst in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, been subjected to any restrictions on his rights to receive and impart information. Nor has it been shown that the deportation decision in reality constituted a penalty imposed on the applicant for having exercised his rights under Art 10 of the Convention, rather than a proper exercise on security grounds of the discretionary power of deportation reserved to States.”
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers


 
X -v- Italy (1976) 5 DR 83
1976
ECHR

Human Rights
Complaints were made under articles 9, 10 and 11 by persons convicted of reorganising the Fascist Party in Italy.
European Convention on Human Rights 9 10 11
1 Citers


 
Ahmad -v- Inner London Education Authority [1976] ICR 461
1976
EAT

Employment, Human Rights
The appellant was a moslem junior school teacher. The Authority appealed an acceptance of his claim for unfair dismissal, having left his employment because he was not given time off to attend the mosque on Fridays. The Tribunal considered whether, despite his contract of employment, ILEA should have accommodated him and adjusted his time-table accordingly and found on balance that ILEA had not been unreasonable. Following that hearing, ILEA did agree to re-engage the applicant, as requested, on a four-and-a-half day week. Held: The tribunal's decision was upheld.
1 Citers


 
X -v- Denmark 7374/76; (1976) 5 DR 157
1976
ECHR

Human Rights
Admissibility decision - state interference in appointment of clergyman. A clergyman was held to have accepted the discipline of his church when he took employment, and his right to leave the church guaranteed his freedom of religion.
European Conmvention on Human Rights 9
1 Citers


 
Agee -v- United Kingdom (1976) 7 DR 164
1976
ECHR

Human Rights

1 Citers



 
 Swedish Engine Drivers' Union -v- Sweden; ECHR 6-Feb-1976 - 5614/72; [1976] ECHR 2

 
 Schmidt And Dahlstrom -v- Sweden; ECHR 6-Feb-1976 - 5589/72; (1976) 1 EHRR 632; [1976] ECHR 1
 
X -v- Iceland 6825/74; [1976] ECHR 7; (1976) 5 DR 86
18 May 1976
ECHR

Human Rights
The right to respect for private life was held to "comprise also, to a certain degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings".
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Engel And Others -v- The Netherlands (1); ECHR 8-Jun-1976 - 5101/71; 5354/72; 5102/71; 5370/72; [1976] ECHR 3; 5100/71; (1976) 1 EHRR 647

 
 Antoine -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 8-Jun-1976 - 62960/00; [1976] ECHR 8; [2003] ECHR 709
 
Engel And Others -v- The Netherlands (Article 50) [1976] ECHR 4; 5102/71; 5100/71; 5101/71; (1979) 1 EHRR 706
23 Nov 1976
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) - Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient.
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen -v- Denmark 5926/72; [1976] ECHR 6; 5095/71; 5920/72; (1976) 1 EHRR 711
7 Dec 1976
ECHR

Human Rights
The court discussed the meaning of 'other status' under article 14, saying: "Article 14 prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal characteristic ('status') by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each other."
European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Handyside -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 7-Dec-1976 - 5493/72; (1976) 1 EHRR 737; [1976] ECHR 5
 
Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen -v- Denmark 5095/71; 5920/72; 5926/72; [1976] ECHR 6; (1976) 1 EHRR 711
7 Dec 1976
ECHR

Human Rights, Education
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools. Held: The parents' philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their children to state schools or educate them at home. Article 2 of the First Protocol is aimed at preventing state indoctrination, and must be applied in conformity with other articles of the Convention. "Article 14 prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal characteristic ('status') by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each other. However there is nothing in the contested legislation which can suggest that it envisaged such treatment" and "other status" in Article 14 means a personal characteristic.
ECHR Judgment (Merits) - No violation of P1-2; No violation of Art. 14+P1-2; No violation of Art. 8+P1-2; No violation of Art. 9+P1-2.
European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ]
 
Ahmad -v- Inner London Education Authority [1978] QB 36; [1977] ICR 490
1977
CA
Lord Denning MR, Scarman LJ (dissenting
Employment, Human Rights
The appellant said that his human rights were infringed when, as a moslem, he was refsued time off from his work as a primary school teacher to attend prayers at the mosque on Fridays. He had subsequentlly been re-instated part-time, but complained that this affected his pension rights. Held: Lord Denning MR said that whilst the European Convention on Human Rights was not part of English law, the courts would do their best to see that their decisions were in conformity with it. Nevertheless, care should be taken to avoid special privileges, with resultant discontent and even resentment, in the name of religious freedom, and: "The school time-table was well known to Mr Ahmad when he applied for the teaching post. It was for the usual teaching hours from Monday to Friday, inclusive. If he wished to have every Friday afternoon off for his prayers, either he ought not to have applied for this post: or he ought to have made it clear at the outset and entered into a 4.5 -day engagement only. This was the sensible thing for him to do. Instead he undertook full-time work without making any disclosure that he wanted Friday afternoon off for prayers. I think that section 30 can be applied to the situation perfectly well by reading it as subject to the qualification "if the school time-table so permits". So read, it means that he is entitled to attend for religious worship during the working week if it can be arranged consistently with performing his teaching duties under his contract of employment . . I have no doubt that all headmasters will try to arrange their time-table so as to accommodate devout Muslims like Mr Ahmad: but I do not think they should be compelled to do so, if it means disrupting the work of the school and the well-being of the pupils."
. . and "I see nothing in the European Convention to give Mr Ahmad any right to manifest his religion on Friday afternoons in derogation of his contract of employment: and certainly not on full pay."
Orr LJ: "Nor, in my judgment, can the answer to the question raised by this appeal be that a Muslim teacher has a right to absent himself for Friday prayers if his doing so will cause only a small inconvenience in the school. This solution would have some attraction because in the present case one of the headmasters concerned, Mr Foley, was able to accommodate Mr Ahmad's absence and it may be that others might have done so but for the policy adopted by the ILEA. But such a solution, quite apart from the grave practical disadvantage that it would involve detailed investigation in each case as to the degree of difficulty involved, is in my judgment unacceptable in principle since absence without leave in school hours would be a breach of contract even if the inconvenience were slight."
Scarman LJ (dissenting) observed that society had changed since 1944, as had the legal background in terms of the UK's international obligations and the acknowledged importance of eliminating discrimination of all kinds. He would therefore have been willing to give to section 30, which was admittedly incorporated into Mr Ahmad's contract, a broad construction designed to avoid discrimination on the ground of religious observance, so that timetabling arrangements would be required to enable attendance at religious worship consistent with the duty of full-time service: all that Mr Ahmad had needed, on the facts, was a leeway of 45 minutes, which could and should have been accommodated.
European Convention on Human Rights 9(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 X -v- Federal Republic of Germany; ECHR 5-Jul-1977 - Unreported, 5 July 1977
 
Bruggeman and Scheuten -v- Federal Republic of Germany (1977) 3 EHRR 244; [1977] ECHR 1
12 Jul 1977
ECHR

Human Rights
(Commission) The applicants complained at restrictions on the termination of unwanted pregnancies. Held: Article 8(1) secures to the individual a sphere within which he can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his personality. He must have the possibility of developing relationships of various kinds, including sexual, with other persons. However, there are limits to the personal sphere. The concept of private life comprises to a certain degree the right to establish and to develop relationships with other human beings, especially in the emotional field for the development and fulfilment of one's own personality.
European Convention on Human Rights 8(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hamer -v- The United Kingdom 7114/75; [1977] ECHR 2
13 Oct 1977
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
X -v- United Kingdom 7547/76
15 Dec 1977
ECHR

Human Rights
The Acts of State officials, including diplomatic or consular agents, bring persons and property under the jurisdiction of that State, to the extent that they exercise their authority in respect of these persons or that property.
The applicant's husband had removed her daughter to Jordan. The English Courts granted her custody and a committal order against the father requiring him to ensure that the daughter would be returned to the UK within three weeks. Her claim in Jordan was dismissed in absentia. When the father went back to Jordan, she sought assistance from the British Consulate in Amman to obtain the necessary local custody order. She complained at the lack of assistance. Held: The claim was inadmissible. The consular office had taken what steps were reasonably open to them to assist. However 'authorised agents of a state, including diplomatic or consular agents bring other persons or property within the jurisdiction of that State to the extent that they exercise authority over such persons of property. Insofar as they affect such persons or property by their acts or omissions, the responsibility of eth State is engaged.'
European Convention on Human Rights 1

 
X -v- United Kingdom 7782/77
1978
ECHR

Education, Human Rights
(Commission) In the context of the second sentence of Article 2, "there is no positive obligation on the State in relation to the second sentence . . to subsidise any particular form of education in order to respect the religions and philosophical beliefs of parents. It is sufficient for the State, in order to comply with its obligations under Article 2, to evidence respect for the religions and philosophical beliefs of parents within the existing and developing system of education."
European Convention on Human Rights 2
1 Citers



 
 X and Y -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1978 - (1978) 12 D & R 32

 
 X -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 1978 - 8208/78
 
X and Y -v- Switzerland (1978) 13 DR 241
1978
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
The court considered the denial to a husband and wife of the opportunity to enjoy sexual relations while they were both in prison.
European Convention on Human Rights 12
1 Citers



 
 The Republic of Ireland -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Jan-1978 - 5310/71; Series A no 25, p 65; [1978] ECHR 1; (1978) 2 EHRR 25
 
Tyrer -v- The United Kingdom 5856/72; (1978) 2 EHRR 1; [1978] ECHR 2
25 Apr 1978
ECHR

Human Rights
Three strokes with a birch constituted degrading punishment for a 15-year-old boy, which violated article 3 having regard to the particular circumstances in which it was administered.
Preliminary objection rejected (disappearance of object of proceedings); Violation of Art. 3; Just satisfaction not applied.
The Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Konig -v- Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170; 6232/73; [1978] ECHR 3; [1978] ECHR 3; [1980] ECHR 2
28 Jun 1978
ECHR

Human Rights
The reasonableness of the duration of proceedings must be assessed according to the circumstances of each case, including its complexity, the applicant’s conduct and the manner in which the administrative and judicial authorities dealt with the matters. "Both the Commission and the government agree that the concept of "civil rights and obligations" cannot be interpreted solely by reference to the domestic law of the respondent state. … the concept of "civil rights and obligations" is autonomous. Whilst the court thus concludes that the concept of "civil rights and obligations" is autonomous, it nevertheless does not consider that, in this context, the legislation of the state concerned is without importance. Whether or not a right is to be regarded as civil within the meaning of this expression in the Convention must be determined by reference to the substantive content and effects of the right – and not its legal classification – under the domestic law of the state concerned. In the exercise of its supervisory functions, the court must also take account of the object and purpose of the Convention and of the national systems of other contracting states."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Konig -v- Germany (No1) 6232/73 A/27; [1978] ECHR 6
28 Jun 1978
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Klass And Others -v- Germany 5029/71; (1979) 2 EHRR 214; [1978] ECHR 4; [1978] ECHR 4
6 Sep 1978
ECHR

Human Rights, Police
The claimant objected to the disclosure by the police of matters revealed during their investigation, but in this case, it was held, disclosure even after the event "might well jeopardise the long-term purpose that originally prompted the surveillance" and, in any event, there were statutory bodies "independent of the authorities carrying out the surveillance and…vested with sufficient powers and competence to exercise an effective and continuous control" The court recognised that some operations must be conducted secretly if they are to be conducted effectively. "The Court must be satisfied that, whatever system of surveillance is adopted, there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Arrowsmith -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 12-Oct-1978 - (1978) 3 EHRR 218; 7050/75; [1978] ECHR 7
 
Luedicke, Belkacem And Koc -v- Germany 6210/73; 7132/75; 6877/75; [1978] ECHR 5; [1980] ECHR 3
28 Nov 1978
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (disappearance of object of proceedings); Violation of Art. 6-3-e; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Just satisfaction partially reserved 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Luedicke, Belkacem And KoÇ -v- Germany 6210/73;6877/75;7132/75; [1978] ECHR 5; [1980] ECHR 3
28 Nov 1978
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kaplan -v- United Kingdom (1980) 4 EHRR 64; 7598/76
14 Dec 1978
ECHR

Human Rights, Administrative
(Admissibility) The Secretary of State had, after preliminary procedures, served notices on an insurance company disallowing it from writing any new business, because its managing director the applicant, had been found not to be a fit and proper person to be a controller of the company. He had misstated the value of the company's assets. The director claimed that the matters in issue should, under Article 6(1) of the Convention, have been decided by a court, and not by the Secretary of State. The respondent said that the action was inadmissible, the applicant not yet having exhausted his court remedies. Held: The application was admissible. The jurisdiction of the courts cannot be removed altogether or limited beyond a certain point, but administrative decisions do not generally attract the full judicial model type of review: "an interpretation of Article 6(1) under which it was held to provide a right to a full appeal on the merits of every administrative decision . . would therefore lead to a result which was inconsistent with the existing and longstanding legal position in most of the Contracting States.
To avoid that consequence, the principle that has evolved in the Strasbourg Court is that decision-making in administrative cases according to the strict judicial model is not required in all cases. This has been achieved in several ways, and the path to a settled position is still being trod." and
"it is a feature of the administrative law of all the contracting states that in numerous different fields public authorities are empowered by law to take various forms of action impinging on the private rights of citizens."
"It is plain from the text of Article 6(1) that it does not directly protect the individual's 'civil rights' as such against acts or decisions which modify, annul or otherwise interfere with them. In many circumstances the private rights of an individual are liable to be affected not only by the lawful acts of public authorities but also by those of other individuals or entities exercising counter-vailing private rights of their own, and indeed by circumstances of a purely factual nature such as the effluxion of time. The mere fact that an individual's private rights are adversely affected by the acts of another party, whether a public authority or not, does not therefore involve a violation of Article 6(1).
. . The Commission has held that where Article 6(1) applies to an administrative process, it may be sufficient that a court procedure is available at some stage after the initial administration decision. It has left open the question whether Article 6(1) would apply both to the administrative and the judicial part of restitution proceedings in the Federal Republic of Germany, or whether it covers only the proceedings in court. It recalls that it is also held that proceedings concerning the registration of patients fall outside the scope of Article 6(1) on the ground that this is an 'essentially administrative' matter.
154. In the Commission's view the essential role of Article 6(1) in this sphere is to lay down guarantees concerning the mode in which claims or disputes concerning legal rights and obligations (of a 'civil' character) are to be resolved. A distinction must be drawn between the acts of a body which is engaged in the resolution of such a claim or dispute and the acts of an administrative or other body purporting merely to exercise or apply a legal power vested in it and not to resolve a legal claim or dispute. Article 6(1) would not, in the Commission's opinion apply, to the acts of the latter even if they do affect 'civil rights'. It could not be considered as being engaged in a process of 'determination' of civil rights and obligations. Its function would not be to decide ('décidera') on a claim, dispute or 'contestation'. Its acts may, on the other hand, give rise to a claim, dispute or 'contestation' and Article 6 may come into play in that way.
155. As to the present case, the Commission notes that the Secretary of State was not engaged in the resolution of a dispute between parties concerning civil rights. He proposed to take action affecting (as the Commission has found) the company's private rights. He considered the objections put forward and then acted. He took action in the exercise of his legal powers which affected 'civil rights' but was not engaged in the 'determination' of a dispute or a 'contestation' concerning civil rights and obligations. In the Commission's opinion, the procedures leading to the finding of unfitness against the applicant and the imposition of restrictions on IGA did not therefore themselves have to comply with Article 6(1). The fact that the relevant decisions were not taken by a tribunal after a fair and public hearing does not therefore involve a breach of this provision."
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 - Insurance Companies Act 1974
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ LIP ]

 
 X -v- Germany; ECHR 1979 - (1979) 17 DR 231
 
Hamer -v- United Kingdom (1979) 24 DR 5; (1979) 4 EHRR 139
1979
ECHR

Human Rights, Family
(Commission) The Commission considered the right of a prisoner in prison to get married. Held: A rule against such marriages was incompatible with article 12. The Commission explained the power of national laws in relation to article 12: "Such laws may thus lay down formal rules concerning matters such as notice, publicity and the formalities whereby marriage is solemnised. They may also lay down rules of substance based on generally recognised considerations of public interest. Examples of rules concerning capacity, consent, prohibited degrees of consanguinity or the prevention of bigamy. However, in the Commission's opinion national law may not otherwise deprive a person or category of persons of full legal capacity of the right to marry. Nor may it substantially interfere with their exercise of the right". And "[States] may also lay down rules of substance based on recognised considerations of public interest"
Europen Convention on Human Rights 812
1 Citers


 
X and Church of Scientology -v- Sweden (1979) 16 DR 68
1979
ECHR

Human Rights
The church of scientology was a commercial organisation, and a restriction on it advertising was a restriction on its commercial freedom, not freedom of religion.
1 Citers


 
Malone -v- Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [1979] CLY 2098; [1979] 1 Ch 344; [1980] QB 49; [1979] 2 All ER 620
1979
ChD
Sir Robert Megarry VC
Human Rights, Police, Criminal Evidence
The court considered the lawfulness of telephone tapping. The issue arose following a trial in which the prosecution had admitted the nterception of the plaintiff's telephone conversations under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The plaintiff claimed that the interception had been and was unlawful. Although he dismissed the plaintiff's claim, the Vice Chancellor said "Any regulation of so complex a matter as telephone tapping is essentially a matter for Parliament, not the courts . . this case seems to me to make it plain that telephone tapping is a subject which cries out for legislation."
"I am not unduly troubled by the absence of English authority: there has to be a first time for everything, and if the principles of English law, and not least analogies from the existing rules, together with the requirements of justice and common sense, pointed firmly to such a right existing, then I think the court should not be deterred from recognising the right. On the other hand, it is no function of the courts to legislate in a new field. The extension of the existing laws and principles is one thing, the creation of an altogether new right is another."
"I readily accept that if the question before me were one of construing a statute enacted with the purpose of giving effect to obligations imposed by the Convention, the court would readily seek to construe the legislation in a way that would effectuate the Convention rather than frustrate it. However, no relevant legislation of that sort is in existence. It seems to me that where Parliament has abstained from legislating on a point that is plainly suitable for legislation, it is indeed difficult for the court to lay down new rules of common law or equity that will carry out the Crown's treaty obligations, or to discover for the first time that such rules have always existed."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers


 
X -v- United Kingdom (1979) 15 DR 137
1979
ECHR

Human Rights, Elections
(Commission) The claimant sought admission of her complaint that being employed by the European Commission and resident in Belgium she had lost her right to vote. She contrasted her position with that of members of the armed forces and members of diplomatic missions who retained their votes though overseas. Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The comparators remained in the employment of the UK government and were sent overseas under compulsion. The discrimination was justified. They were resident-citizens, in contrast to the applicant who was living abroad voluntarily.
1 Citers



 
 The Sunday Times -v- The United Kingdom (No 1); ECHR 26-Apr-1979 - 6538/74; (1979) 2 EHRR 245; [1979] ECHR 1; [1980] ECHR 6

 
 Church of Scientology -v- Sweden; ECHR 5-May-1979 - 7805/77; [1979] ECHR 9

 
 Marckx -v- Belgium; ECHR 13-Jun-1979 - 6833/74; (1979) 2 EHRR 330; [1979] ECHR 2

 
 Airey -v- Ireland; ECHR 9-Oct-1979 - 6289/73; Series A no 32; (1979) 2 EHRR 305; [1979] ECHR 3

 
 Rassemblement Jurassien Unite Jurassienne -v- Switzerland; ECHR 10-Oct-1979 - (1979) 17 DLR 93; 8191/78; [1979] ECHR 7
 
Glimmerveen And Hagenbeek -v- The Netherlands 8348/78; [1979] ECHR 8
11 Oct 1979
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]

 
 Winterwerp -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 24-Oct-1979 - [1979] 2 EHRR 387; [1979] ECHR 4; 6301/73

 
 Schiesser -v- Switzerland; ECHR 4-Dec-1979 - (1979-80) 2 EHRR 417; [1979] ECHR 5; 7710/76
 
X -v- Austria 8278/78; [1979] ECHR 6
13 Dec 1979
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
X -v- The United Kingdom 8575/79
14 Dec 1979
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
(Commission - Plenary) - Inadmissible - article 6 inapplicable. The categorisation of a prisoner is "administrative" rather than a determination of disputes about civil rights.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.