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: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 116 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015.

 
A -v- United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 131
1980
ECHR

Human Rights, Health
The Commission declared admissible a complaint from a Broadmoor patient who had been secluded for five weeks after a fire. A friendly settlement was reached, without admission of liability but on the basis that new guidelines for the use of seclusion would be issued, as indeed they were.
1 Citers


 
Paton -v- United Kingdom (1980) 19 DR 244; (1980) 3 EHRR 408
1980
ECHR

Human Rights
An abortion conducted in the tenth week of pregnancy was not condemned. The Commission construed Article 2 to be subject to an implied limitation to allow a balancing act between the interests of mother and unborn child.
European Convention on Human Rights 2
1 Citers


 
Silver -v- United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 475
1980
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
(Commission) Complaint was made as to the censorship of prisoners' correspondence. The censorship of prisoners' correspondence was ancillary to prison rules restricting the contents of correspondence. The Commission, therefore, and the Court had to consider what restraints upon the content of correspondence were permissible. Held: Communications making representations about the prisoner's trial, conviction or sentence whether to the Home Secretary or others should in principle not be prevented. Although there was a statutory right to have recourse to the Home Secretary and it was he who had the statutory power and responsibility to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal, it was not justifiable to confine such communications to him. As regards letters attempting to stimulate public agitation or petition, the Commission again recognised the needs of good order and discipline and the fact that public agitation rather than recourse to legal remedies might undermine the rule of law, but it also accepted as conceivable that: "to avoid or expose injustice, matters relating, for example, to a prisoner's trial, conviction or sentence, or to prison conditions, in general or in a particular case should be brought to the public's attention if necessary by way of petition-raising." A blanket prohibition upon such communications was an over broad restriction. The Commission considered that the applicant's "attempts to clear his name were a legitimate and reasonable exercise of his rights, which had not been shown to have posed any threat to prison good order."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers


 
Sydnet Draper -v- United Kingdom (1980) 24 DR 72
1980
ECHR

Human Rights
(Commission) Rule against marriage of prisoners breach of art 12: "The Commission first recalls that the Court has held that, even though a right is not formally denied, "hindrance in fact can contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment"and hindring (sic) the effective exercise of a right may amount to a breach of that right, even if that hindrance is of a temporary character".
European Convention on Human Rights 12
1 Citers


 
Filarliga -v- Pena-lrala (1980) 630 F 2d 876
1980


Human Rights, International
(US Court of Appeals) "the torturer has become like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind".
1 Citers


 
Deweer -v- Belgium 6903/75; (1980) 2 EHRR 239; [1980] ECHR 1
27 Feb 1980
ECHR
H MOSLER, President
Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The applicant, a Belgian butcher, paid a fine by way of settlement in the face of an order for the closure of his shop until judgment was given in an intended criminal prosecution or until such fine was paid. Held: Since the payment was made in circumstances of constraint and under protest, a violation of Article 6(1) was found. However: "The 'right to a court', which is a constituent element of the right to a fair trial, is no more absolute in criminal than in civil matters. In the Contracting States' domestic legal systems, a waiver of this kind is frequently encountered both in civil matters, notably in the shape of arbitration clauses in contracts, and in criminal matters in the shape inter alia of fines paid by way of composition. The waiver, which has undeniable advantages for the individual concerned as well as for the administration of justice, does not in principle offend against the Convention; on this point the court shares the view of the Commission." The court looks behind the appearances and investigates the realities of the procedure.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Konig -v- Germany 6232/73; [1980] ECHR 2
10 Mar 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ]
 
Luedicke, Belkacem And Koc -v- Germany (Article 50) 6210/73; 7132/75; 6877/75
10 Mar 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (first and third applicants); Costs and expenses - claim rejected (second applicant) 6210/73; 6877/75; 7132/75

 
Luedicke, Belkacem And Koc -v- Germany (Article 50) 6877/75; 6210/73; 7132/75
10 Mar 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) - Struck out of the list (first and third applicants); Costs and expenses - claim rejected (second applicant).
[ ECHR ]
 
Artico -v- Italy [1980] ECHR 4; 6694/74; [1980] ECHR 4
13 May 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (ratione temporis); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected
[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
McFeeley and others -v- The United Kingdom 8317/78; [1981] 3 EHRR 161; [1984] ECHR 23
15 May 1980
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons
(Commission) The claimants had been convicted of terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland and were serving prisoners in HMP The Maze. They protested at a change of regime imposed in 1976, resulting in them not being permitted association with the rest of the prison community. Prisoners complained at "close body" searches, including anal inspections, which were carried out routinely on occasions where dangerous objects had in the past been found concealed in the recta of protesting prisoners. Held: In assessing whether security measures in a prison may fall within the ambit of Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned. "The Commission has taken into consideration the exceptional circumstances in the Maze Prison, in particular the dangerous objects that have been found concealed in the recta of protesting prisoners (such as razor blades, flints, matches, cigarette lighters); the fact that, in the past, protesting prisoners have used such objects for disruptive purposes (e.g., to burn the perspex shields used for window coverings); the serious risk that concealed letters might identify prison officers as potential assassination targets." and "While there can be no doubt that many prisoners find such procedures humiliating, the Commission is of the opinion that in the circumstances the level of mental or physical suffering is not such as to amount to inhuman treatment. Similarly, it does not consider that the degree of debasement or humiliation involved, particularly in respect of prisoners who must be aware by reason of their campaign of the substantial security threat posed, reaches the level of severity required for it to amount to degrading treatment."
European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Church Of Scientology And 128 Of Its Members -v- Sweden 8282/78; [1980] ECHR 8
14 Jul 1980
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Freda -v- Italy 8916/80
7 Oct 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
(Commission) An Italian citizen had been handed over by the authorities in Costa Rica to Italian police who obliged him to go on board an Italian Air Force plane. Held: The Commission was satisfied that he was under the authority of the Italian state and therefore within the jurisdiction of that country from the time he was handed over, notwithstanding that this authority was being exercised abroad.
1 Citers


 
Guzzardi -v- Italy (1980 Series A No 39); 7367/76; [1980] ECHR 5; (1980) 3 EHRR 333
6 Nov 1980
ECHR

Human Rights, Crime
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently with him, practise the Catholic religion or ensure his son's education. Held: Confinement on such a small island was a deprivation of liberty under the convention. "The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is nonetheless merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. Although the process of classification into one or other of these categories sometimes proves to be no easy task in that some borderline cases are a matter of pure opinion, the Court cannot avoid making the selection upon which the applicability or inapplicability of Article 5 depends." and "The starting point must be [the] 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 procedure did not however involve the determination of a criminal charge against him within the meaning of article 6.
European Convention on Human Rights 5 6
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Van Oosterwijck -v- Belgium 7654/76; [1980] ECHR 7; [1980] ECHR 7
6 Nov 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion)
The refusal of Belgium to enable the registers of civil status to reflect lawful sex-changes violated the right to respect for private life in article 8.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
The Sunday Times -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 6538/74; [1980] ECHR 6
6 Nov 1980
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ]

 
 Liberal Party -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Dec-1980 - [1980] ECHR 10; 8765/79
 
Jespers -v- Belgium [1981] 27 DR 61; (1983) 5 EHRR 305; 8403/78
1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Media
ECHR (Commission) Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention
(a) A virulent press campaign can, in certain circumstances, adversely affect the fairness of a trial and involve the State's responsibility, particularly if it is sparked off bv one of the State's organs.
(b) Alleged failure by the public prosecutor's office to include in the file and communicate to the defence certain relevant documents which are in its possession (Complaint declared admissible).
Article 26 of the Convention :
(a) Where it is alleged that the members of the jury could have been particularly open to influence by a press campaign concerning the accused, an application for the case to be referred to another court on grounds of legitimate suspicion (art. 542 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) constitutes a remedv which has to be exhausted.
(b) Where it is alleged that certain relevant documents have neither been included in the criminal file nor communicated to the defence by the public prosecutor's office, a request for the review of the trial (art . 443, para. 3 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) is not a remedy the preliminary exhaustion of which is required.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3) 26
1 Citers



 
 Fernandes -v- Secretary of State; CA 1981 - [1981] Imm AR 1
 
Ahmad -v- United Kingdom (1981) 4 EHRR 126
1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Discrimination
(Commision) The applicant was a devout Muslim. His religious duty was to offer prayers on Fridays and to attend a mosque if possible. He was employed as a full time primary school teacher. He complained that he was forced to resign because he was refused permission to attend a mosque for the purposes of worship during hours of employment. Held: There had been no interference with his freedom of religion under Article 9(1) of the Convention: "the freedom of religion, as guaranteed by Article 9, is not absolute, but subject to the limitations set out in Article 9(2). Moreover, it may, as regards the modality of a particular religious manifestation, be influenced by the situation of the person claiming that freedom. "it may as regards the modality of a particular religious manifestation, be influenced by the situation of the person claiming that freedom". That had been recognised in the case of a person with special contractual obligations. The case was one of a coincidence of teaching obligations and religious duties rather than of religious manifestations in the course of the performance of professional functions, and the local education authority was entitled to rely on its contract with the applicant. "Throughout his employment the applicant remained free to resign if and when he found that his teaching obligations conflicted with his religious duties. It notes that, in 1975, the applicant did in fact resign from his five-day employment and that he subsequently accepted four-and-a-half day employment enabling him to comply with his duties as a Muslim on Fridays."
European Convention on Human Rights 9(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Jespers -v- Belgium [1981] 27 DR 61; (1983) 5 EHRR 305; 8403/78
1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Media
ECHR (Commission) Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention
(a) A virulent press campaign can, in certain circumstances, adversely affect the fairness of a trial and involve the State's responsibility, particularly if it is sparked off bv one of the State's organs.
(b) Alleged failure by the public prosecutor's office to include in the file and communicate to the defence certain relevant documents which are in its possession (Complaint declared admissible).
Article 26 of the Convention :
(a) Where it is alleged that the members of the jury could have been particularly open to influence by a press campaign concerning the accused, an application for the case to be referred to another court on grounds of legitimate suspicion (art. 542 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) constitutes a remedv which has to be exhausted.
(b) Where it is alleged that certain relevant documents have neither been included in the criminal file nor communicated to the defence by the public prosecutor's office, a request for the review of the trial (art . 443, para. 3 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) is not a remedy the preliminary exhaustion of which is required.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3) 26
1 Citers



 
 McVeigh, O'Neill and Evans -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1981 - (1983) 5 EHRR 71; (1981) 25 DR 15; 8022/77; 8025/77; 8027/77; [1981] ECHR 11; (1982) DR 25

 
 Airey -v- Ireland; ECHR 6-Feb-1981 - 6289/73; [1981] ECHR 1

 
 Raymond -v- Honey; HL 4-Mar-1981 - [1982] AC 1; [1981] UKHL 8
 
X -v- United Kingdom 8160/78; [1981] ECHR 9
12 Mar 1981
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
X -v- Germany 8819/79; [1981] ECHR 8; (1981) 24 DR 158
19 Mar 1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Police
The Commission had regard to the fact that the purpose for which the children were taken to the police headquarters and kept there for about two hours was to question them, not to arrest or detain them. This led to the conclusion that the action in question did not constitute a deprivation of liberty in the sense of article 5(1).
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Buchholz -v- Germany 7759/77; [1981] ECHR 2; (1981) 3 EHRR 597
6 May 1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Constitutional
The ECHR did not apply to rights determined by a constitutional court because of their constitutional nature.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere -v- Belgium; ECHR 23-Jun-1981 - 7238/75; [1981] ECHR 3; 6878/75; (1982) 4 EHRR 1

 
 Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere -v- Belgium; ECHR 23-Jun-1981 - 7238/75; 6878/75; (1981) 4 EHRR 1
 
Young, James And Webster -v- The United Kingdom 7806/77; 7601/76; (1981) 4 EHRR 38; [1981] ECHR 4
13 Aug 1981
ECHR
Wiarda P
Human Rights
Employees claimed religious objections to being obliged to members of a Trades Union. Held: It is the obligation of states which have ratified the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms which it protects.
European Convention on Human Rights 11
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Dudgeon -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 22-Oct-1981 - 7525/76; [1981] 4 EHRR 149; [1981] ECHR 5
 
X -v- United Kingdom 7215/75; (1982) 4 EHRR 188; [1981] ECHR 6
5 Nov 1981
ECHR

Human Rights, Health
The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the discharge of the patient. Held: This advisory power did not meet the Convention requirement: "Nonetheless, even supposing Mental Health Review Tribunals fulfilled these conditions, they lack the competence to decide 'the lawfulness of [the] detention' and to order release if the detention is unlawful, as they have advisory functions only."

What was required was a review: "wide enough to bear on those conditions which, according to the Convention, are essential for the "lawful" detention of a person on the ground of unsoundness of mind, especially as the reasons capable of initially justifying such a detention may cease to exist . . This means that in the instant case article 5(4) required an appropriate procedure allowing a court to examine whether the patient's disorder still persisted and whether the Home Secretary was entitled to think that a continuation of the compulsory confinement was necessary in the interests of public safety."
Mental Health Act 1959 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Winterwerp -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 27-Nov-1981 - 6301/73; [1981] ECHR 7; [1981] ECHR 10
 
Schering Chemicals Ltd -v- Falkman Ltd [1982] QB 1
1982
CA
Sach LJ, Shaw LJ, Lord Denning MR (dissenting)
Media, Company, Human Rights
The Defendants' professional skills were engaged to present the plaintiff company in a good light, and an injunction was granted to restrain them from doing the opposite. Sach LJ said: "even in the commercial field, ethics and good faith are not to be regarded as merely opportunist or expedient" and Shaw LJ: "There is the larger question of the undesirability of presenting simulated trials of the subject matter of pending or prospective litigation on so influential a medium of publicity as television. This must be a matter of degree. When the presentation appears to encroach upon the function and authority of the judicature, the limits of tolerance are clearly exceeded".
Lord Denning MR emphasised that the right of privacy is fundamental. English law "should conform as far as possible with the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights."
1 Citers


 
Arrondelle -v- United Kingdom 7889/77; (1982) 26 D R 5 F Sett
1982
ECHR

Human Rights
Article 8 of the Convention is aimed, in part, at protecting the home and are construed to give protection against nuisances including aircraft noise.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers


 
JW and EW -v- United Kingdom Application No 9776/82
1982
ECHR

Human Rights, Benefits
The Commission considered a complaint that the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension infringed the pensioner’s Convention rights. The applicants were emigrating to Australia. The Commission rejected the complaint as inadmissible, saying "The Commission has considered the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of the Protocol. It first recalls that it has previously held that although this provision does not as such guarantee a right to a pension, the right to benefit from a social security system to which a person has contributed may in some circumstances be a property right protected by it. However the Commission also held that 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" (App. No. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria, D.R 3, p.25 at p. 31). It has further held that before the right to benefit protected by Article 1 can be established, it is necessary that the interested party should have satisfied domestic legal requirements governing the right (App. No. 7459/76, X. v. Italy, D.R. 11, p. 114). In the present case when the applicants emigrate to Australia their entitlement to benefit from the United Kingdom pension scheme will come to be regulated by different rules of domestic law, under which they will cease to qualify for payment of future pension increases contemplated by the relevant legislation. To that extent they will not satisfy domestic legal requirements to benefit from the United Kingdom pension scheme. Even if the right to benefit from a scheme will normally also apply to the regular increases this is not necessarily the case where a person leaves the country where the specific scheme operates. The Commission notes that in many countries specific restrictions as to the payment of social security benefits to foreign countries exist or have existed… In the Commission’s view such operation of domestic law does not amount to a deprivation of possessions infringing Article 1 of the Protocol and there is thus no appearance of any breach of this provision."
1 Citers


 
X Ltd and Y Ltd -v- United Kingdom (1982) 28 DR 77
1982
ECHR

Human Rights, Defamation
The Commission considered the common law offence of blasphemous libel as an offence defined under common law rather than statute law. Held: "The Commission considers that the same principles also apply to the interpretation and application of the common law. Whilst this branch of the law presents certain particularities for the very reason that it is by definition law developed by the courts, it is nevertheless subject to the rule that the law making function of the courts must remain within reasonable limits. In particular in the area of the criminal law it is excluded, by virtue of Article 7(1) of the Convention, that any acts not previously punishable should be held by the courts to entail criminal liability, or that existing offences should be extended to cover facts which previously clearly did not constitute a criminal offence. This implies that constituent elements of an offence such as e.g. the particular form of culpability required for its completion may not be essentially changed, at least not to the detriment of the accused, by the case law of the courts. On the other hand it is not objectionable that the existing elements of the offence are clarified and adapted to new circumstances which can reasonably be brought under the original concept of the offence."
1 Citers



 
 A -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1982 - 9773/82; [1982] 5 EHRR 296

 
 H -v- Spain; ECHR 1982 - 10227/82
 
Godfrey -v- United Kingdom 8542/79; [1982] ECHR 14
4 Feb 1982
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Campbell and Cosans -v- The United Kingdom 7511/76; 7743/76; (1982) 4 EHRR 293; [1982] ECHR 1
25 Feb 1982
ECHR
Mr. R. Ryssdal P
Human Rights, Education
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten "cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State's power of regulation in article 2". The Convention protects only religions and philosophies which are "worthy of respect in a 'democratic society' and are not incompatible with human dignity".
ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Violation of P1-2; No violation of Art. 3; Just satisfaction reserved.
European Convention on Human Rights 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Adolf -v- Austria 8269/78; [1982] ECHR 2; (1982) 4 EHRR 313; [1982] ECHR 2
26 Mar 1982
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
An elderly lady complained that the applicant had assaulted her. The police investigated and reported back to the prosecutor who referred the matter to the Innsbruck District Court. The court registered the case as a "punishable act" under section 83 of the Penal Code for the infliction of bodily harm. In a decision relating to the costs of a medical opinion the court referred to "the criminal proceedings" against the applicant, who was described as "the accused". Later, at the request of the prosecutor, the court terminated the proceedings under a provision of the Penal Code which provided for such termination if the offence carried no more than a moderate penalty, the guilt of the subject was slight, the act had no more than trifling consequences and punishment was not necessary to deter the subject from committing criminal offences. In giving the reasons for its decision the court recounted the facts of the assault, with no indication that these were the subject of challenge by the applicant (as they were) and ruled that the injury caused was insignificant, that "the fault … of the accused may be described as insignificant" and that the character of the applicant "gives cause to expect that he will conduct himself properly in future". On these facts the Court concluded that there was a criminal charge, although it was unnecessary to determine the precise moment at which the applicant was charged, and that article 6 was engaged. But there was held to be no breach of the article, since the applicant had been in effect exonerated by the Supreme Court. In contrast with the present case, however, there were formal proceedings against the applicant in a criminal court; he was "the accused"; the proceedings could have culminated in his being punished, although in the event they did not; and there was a reasoned judicial decision which, on its face, found that he had committed an assault, although his fault was said to be minor. The expression "charged with a criminal offence". is to be interpreted as having an autonomous meaning in the context of the Convention
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Van Droogenbroeck -v- Belgium (1982) 4 EHRR 443; [1982] ECHR 3
24 Jun 1982
ECHR
Wiarda P
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
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 appeal, and was classified not as a security measure but as a penalty which formed an inseparable whole together with the principal penalty. Held: "The most significant feature of detention ordered in connection with placing at the Government's disposal is, as has already been pointed out, the relative indetermination of its duration. Depending on the case and the relevant administrative decisions, it may vary from nothing to ten years. No minimum duration is fixed by the law or the court; the detention may continue for a maximum period of 10 years, without the court which ordered the measure exercising the least control over it. In fact, the administration is responsible for adjusting the penalty to the circumstances of the individual." The sentence gave the Minister initial authority to detain for an indeterminate period varying according to the treatment required by the offender and the demands of the protection of society. This system was fundamentally different from that of the conditional release of prisoners "sentenced by a court to a period of imprisonment imposed by the court as being appropriate to the case".
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eckle -v- Germany 8130/78; (1982) 5 EHRR 1; [1982] ECHR 4
15 Jul 1982
ECHR
R. RYSSDAL, President
Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively. Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The "reasonable time" in criminal matters, specified in article 6.1 began to run as soon as a person was charged; that "charge" was defined as the official notification given to an individual by that competent authority of an allegation that he had committed a criminal offence. The court observed that mitigation of sentence and discontinuance on the grounds of delay did not deprive the applicants of their status as victims, and "The Court does not exclude the possibility that this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention. In such circumstances, to duplicate the domestic process with proceedings before the Commission and the Court would hardly be compatible with the subsidiary character of the machinery of protection established by the Convention. The Convention leaves to each Contracting State, in the first place, the task of securing the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines. This subsidiary character is all the more pronounced in the case of States which have incorporated the Convention into their domestic legal order and which treat the rules of the Convention as directly applicable."
The test as to whether a person has been "charged" for the purposes of article 6(1) is whether the situation of the person has been substantially affected.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

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

 
 Sporrong and Lonnroth -v- Sweden; ECHR 23-Sep-1982 - 7152/75; [1983] 5 EHRR 35; [1982] ECHR 5; 7151/75
 
Piersack -v- Belgium 8692/79; 8692/79; [1982] ECHR 6; [1984] ECHR 16; (1984) 7 EHRR 251; (1982) 5 EHRR 169; [1982] ECHR 6; [1984] ECHR 16
1 Oct 1982
ECHR

Human Rights, Damages
Hudoc applicant convicted of murder complained that his right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) had been denied because the trial court had been presided over by a Judge who, when senior deputy procureur, had been in charge of the department which decided to prosecute the applicant. Held: "Whilst impartiality normally denotes absence of prejudice or bias, its existence or otherwise can, notably under Article 6(1) of the Convention, be tested in various ways. A distinction can be drawn in this context between a subjective approach, that is endeavouring to ascertain the personal conviction of a given judge in a given case, and an objective approach, that is determining whether he offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect." The Court acknowledged the principle of restitutio in integrum.
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
A -v- United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR CD296; 9054/80; [1982] ECHR 15
8 Oct 1982
ECHR

Human Rights, Family
A disabled UK citizen living on benefits complained of the denial of entry clearance to his Filippino fiancee whom he had never met but wished to marry here. The ground of refusal was that she would be a charge on public funds. Held: The right to marry did not in principle include the right to choose the geographical location of the marriage and the refusal of entry was justified. The case did not involve a genuine marriage between two persons already in the jurisdiction.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere -v- Belgium; ECHR 18-Oct-1982 - (1983) 5 EHRR 533; 7238/75; 6878/75; [1982] ECHR 7
 
Young, James And Webster -v- The United Kingdom [1982] ECHR 9; 7806/77; 7601/76
18 Oct 1982
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) - Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings.
European Convention on Human Rights 50
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
X -v- The United Kingdom 7215/75; [1982] ECHR 8
18 Oct 1982
ECHR

Human Rights

1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Elh And Pbh -v- The United Kingdom 32094/96; [1982] ECHR 13
22 Oct 1982
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Foti And Others -v- Italy 7604/76;7719/76;7781/77;
10 Dec 1982
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Preliminary objection rejected (ex officio examination); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
[ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ]
 
Foti And Others -v- Italy 7604/76; [1982] ECHR 11; [1983] ECHR 12
10 Dec 1982
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Foti And Others -v- Italy 7604/76 ; 7719/76 ; 7781/
10 Dec 1982
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (ex officio examination); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved 7604/76; 7719/76; 7781/77; 7913/77

 
Corigliano -v- Italy [1982] ECHR 10; 8304/78
10 Dec 1982
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (substantially the same); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Brazil -v- Chief Constable of Surrey [1983] 3 All E R 537; [1983] 1 WLR 1155
1983
QBD
Robert Goff LJ, McNeill J
Police, Crime, Human Rights, Torts - Other
The appellant had been convicted of assaulting a female police officer in the course of her duty when attempting to search her at a police station under section 23(2). She said that the police officers had not been acting in the execution of their duty because a search imposed a restraint on a person's freedom and also an interference with the right to privacy under Article 8(1) of the ECHR. Held: A police constable was not normally entitled to carry out such a search without first telling the victim of the search why it was necessary in the particular case. The reason for a police officer exercising a search is to allow the person to be searched to object that the reason is inadequate: Counsel: "If persons do not know why they are being searched, they have no basis on which to form a view whether or not that search is justified in the circumstances." Robert Goff LJ: "I can see no difficulty in general terms in the officer explaining to the person no doubt in the simplest and most ordinary language, why the search is proposed. In my judgment, generally speaking, that ought to be done. Consistent with the speech of Viscount Simon in Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573, there may well be circumstances where the giving of such reasons would not be necessary. To give an example, the circumstances may be such that it is perfectly obvious why a search is necessary. If so, it would be otiose for the officer concerned to give an explanation." and "In general terms, the citizens of this country should not have their freedom interfered with unless it would be lawful to do so, and, in my judgment, an explanation should generally be given to persons why a personal search is to be carried out."
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(2)
1 Cites



 
 Soenen -v- Director of Edmonton Remand Centre; 1983 - (1983) 35 CR (3d) 206
 
Hendricks -v- Netherlands (1983) 5 EHRR 223
1983
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
(Commission) In the context of article 8 the rights and freedoms of the child include his interests. "The Commission has consistently held that, in assessing the question of whether or not the refusal of the right of access to the non-custodial parent was in confidentially with article 8 of the Convention the interests of the child predominate."
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers



 
 Bramelid -v- Sweden; ECHR 1983 - (1983) 5 EHRR 249
 
Yarrow plc and Others -v- United Kingdom 9266/81
1983


Human Rights
Only a directly affected victim of an infringement can complain of that infringement.


 
 Zamir -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1983 - [1983] 40 DR 42

 
 G -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1983 - 9370/81; (1983) 35 DR 75

 
 Albert And Le Compte -v- Belgium; ECHR 10-Feb-1983 - 7496/76; [1983] ECHR 1; [1983] ECHR 10; 7299/75; (1983) 5 EHRR 533
 
Albert And Le Compte -v- Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533; 7299/75; 7496/76; [1983] ECHR 1; [1983] ECHR 10
10 Feb 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Dudgeon -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 24-Feb-1983 - [1983] ECHR 2; 7525/76; (1983) 5 EHRR 573

 
 W -v- Ireland; ECHR 28-Feb-1983 - 9360/81; [1983] ECHR 17; 32 DR 190
 
Campbell And Cosans -v- United Kingdom 7511/76; [1983] ECHR 3; 7743/76
22 Mar 1983
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Silver And Others -v- The United Kingdom 5947/72;6205/73;7052/75;...; [1983] ECHR 5; [1983] ECHR 11
25 Mar 1983
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Silver And Others -v- The United Kingdom 6205/73; [1983] 6 EHHR 62; [1983] 5 EHRR 347; [1983] ECHR 5; [1983] ECHR 11; 7052/75; 5947/72
25 Mar 1983
ECHR

Human Rights, Damages, Prisons
There had been interference with prisoners' letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were restrictive. Held: "it is true that those applicants who were in custody may have experienced some annoyance and sense of frustration as a result of the restrictions that were imposed on particular letters. It does not appear, however, that this was of such intensity that it would in itself justify an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage." Restrictions were however justifiable so long as the law was sufficiently precise to enable the individual to regulate his conduct, and that orders and instructions could be properly taken into account. " and "a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion." though "the Court has already recognised the impossibility of attaining absolute certainty in the framing of laws and the risk that the search for certainty may entail excessive rigidity . . [T]he Court points out once more that 'many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice." As to the rule prohibiting "letters which discuss crime in general or the crime of others': "The Commission considers that this restriction is also an obvious requirement of imprisonment and although it is not specified in the Prison Rules 1964, as amended, the Commission is of the opinion that it is a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of the Home Secretary's power under rule 33(1) of the Prison Rules 1964 to impose restrictions on prisoners' correspondence in the interests of good order, the prevention of crime or the interests of any persons. Prison security is, in the Commission's opinion, an essential part of such interest. The prohibition on prisoners' letters which discuss crime in general or the crime of others can, accordingly, be said to be 'in accordance with the law' within the meaning of Article 8(2). . . . On the justification issue, the Commission considers that a prohibition on prisoners' letters which discuss crime in general or the crime of others is, in principle, an ordinary and reasonable requirement of imprisonment, 'necessary in a democratic society … for the prevention of disorder or crime' within the meaning of Article 8(2)."
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) - Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings.
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1 8 13
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ]
 
Minelli -v- Switzerland 8660/79; (1983) 5 EHRR 554; [1983] ECHR 4
25 Mar 1983
ECHR

Human Rights, Costs, Criminal Practice
It was capable of being an infringement of a defendant's right to a fair trial, to refuse to order payment of his costs after an acquittal in such a manner as to cast doubt on his innocence. "In the Court's judgment, the presumption of innocence will be violated if, without the accused's having previously been proved guilty according to law and, notably, without his having had the opportunity of exercising his rights of defence, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty. This may be so even in the absence of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty."
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Van Droogenbroeck -v- Belgium 7906/77; (1991) 13 EHRR 546; [1983] ECHR 7
25 Apr 1983
ECHR
G Wiarda P
Human Rights, Damages
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses - claim rejected
For an imprisonment to be lawful, the 'detention' must result from, 'follow and depend upon' or occur 'by virtue of' the 'conviction.
European Convention on Human Rights 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Pakelli -v- Germany 8398/78; 1983 A 64; [1983] ECHR 6; [1983] ECHR 6
25 Apr 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
A person charged with a criminal offence who does not wish to defend himself in person, must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Eckle -v- Germany (Article 50) 8130/78; [1983] ECHR 8
21 Jun 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings.
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

[ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Zimmermann And Steiner -v- Switzerland 8737/79; [1983] 6 EHRR 17; [1983] ECHR 9
13 Jul 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
When considering cases of delay in court proceedings, the court must look to a further relevant circumstance, that is "what is at stake for the applicant".
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Michel Chartier -v- Italy 9044/80; [1983] ECHR 18
23 Sep 1983
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
G and E -v- Norway 9415/81; 9278/81; [1983] 35 D & R 30; [1983] ECHR 16
3 Oct 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
The court considered the protection to be given to native peoples such as the Saami of Northern Norway.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Albert And Le Compte -v- Belgium (Article 50); ECHR 24-Oct-1983 - 7299/75; 7496/76; [1983] 5 EHRR 533

 
 Albert And Le Compte -v- Belgium; ECHR 24-Oct-1983 - 7496/76; 7299/75
 
Foti And Others -v- Italy (Article 50) 7604/76 ; 7719/76 ; 7781/
21 Nov 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 7604/76; 7719/76; 7781/77; 7913/77

 
Foti And Others -v- Italy (Article 50) 7604/76;7719/76;7781/77;...; [1983] ECHR 12; [1982] ECHR 11
21 Nov 1983
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Van Der Mussele -v- Belgium; ECHR 23-Nov-1983 - 8919/80; (1983) 6 EHRR 163; [1983] ECHR 13
 
Pretto And Others -v- Italy [1983] ECHR 15; 7984/77; (1983) 6 EHRR 182; (1984) 6 EHRR 182
8 Dec 1983
ECHR

Human Rights, Land
The court considered the value of court proceedings being public: "The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies referred to in Article 6(1) protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice visible, 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, within the meaning of the Convention."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Axen -v- Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 195; 8273/78; [1983] ECHR 14; [1983] ECHR 14
8 Dec 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
"The public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies referred to in Article 6(1) protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6(l), namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention." The purpose of a public hearing is to guard against an administration of justice in secret and with no public scrutiny and to maintain public confidence.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
C -v- United Kingdom 10358/83; 37 ECHR D&R 142; [1983] ECHR 19
15 Dec 1983
ECHR

Human Rights
(Commission) "Article 9 primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds, ie, the area which is sometimes called the forum of the internal. In addition, it protects acts which are intimately linked with these attitudes, such as acts of worship or devotion which are aspects of the practice of religion or belief in a generally recognised form. However, in effecting this personal sphere, Article 9 of the Convention does not always guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere in a way which is dictated by such a belief; for instance, by refusing to pay certain taxes because part of the revenue so raised may be applied to military expenditure. The Commission has so held in . . Arrowsmith v United Kingdom where it stated that: 'The term 'practice' as employed in Article 9(1) does not cover each act which is motivated or influenced by a religion or belief."
The obligation to pay taxes is a general one which has no specific conscientious implications in itself. It is also illustrated by the fact that no taxpayer can influence or determine the purpose of which his or her contribution was done once they are collected. Furthermore, the power of taxation is expressly recognised by the Convention system and is ascribed by Article 1 of the First Protocol. It follows that Article 9 does not confer on the applicant the right to refuse, on the basis of his convictions, to abide by legislation the operation of which is provided by the Convention, and which applies neutrally and generally in the public sphere without infringing on the freedoms guaranteed by Article 9. If the applicant considers the obligation to contribute through taxation to arms procurement an outrage to his conscience, he may advertise his attitude and thereby try to obtain support for it through the democratic process." and "The applicant, who is a Quaker, contends that to compel him to contribute to expenditure for armaments rather than for peaceful purports is an outrage to his conscience and contrary to the requirements of the manifestation of the belief that he has. He contends that the manifestation and practice of his Quaker beliefs requires him to oppose recourse to war in the settlement of disputes and not to support, directly or indirectly, weapon procurement, weapon development and other defence-related expenditure. It is therefore his contention that it was a necessary part of the manifestation of his Quaker belief and practice and observed that 40 per cent of his income tax can be diverted for different peaceful purposes. This step is not merely consistent with the Quaker beliefs but necessary to their manifestation."
European Convention on Human Rights 9
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Corner -v- United Kingdom 11271/84
1984
ECHR

Human Rights
The Commission considered a complaint as to the UK government’s failure to pay an uprated pension to an applicant who had emigrated to South Africa. The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s complaint that the failure to pay the uprate infringed Article 1P. It also held that there was no violation of Article 14 read with Article 1P, saying "The Commission recalls that it has previously held that, although Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not, as such, guarantee a right to a pension, the right to benefit from a Social Security system to which a person has contributed may, in some circumstances, be a property right protected by it… However, the Commission has also held that Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of a 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’… in accordance with domestic legal requirements … Further, the Commission has held that the ‘freezing’ of a pension at a particular level when a person leaves the United Kingdom does not amount to a deprivation of possessions infringing Article 1 of the Protocol..."
1 Citers


 
Ferrari-Bravo -v- Italy (1984) 37 DR 15
1984
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Paragraph (3)(d) rights did not apply when a witness was being questioned by the investigating judge, but only at trial.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)
1 Citers


 
Pinder -v- United Kingdom (1984) 7 EHRR 464; 10096/82
1984
ECHR

Human Rights
(Commission) "The Commission … recalls that the concept of 'civil rights' is autonomous. Thus, irrespective of whether a right is in domestic law labelled 'public', 'private', 'civil' or something else, it is ultimately for the Convention organs to decide whether it is a 'civil' right within the meaning of article 6(1). However, in the Commission's view, article 6(1) does not impose requirements in respect of the nature and scope of the relevant national law governing the 'right' in question. Nor does the Commission consider that it is, in principle, competent to determine or review the substantive content of the civil law which ought to obtain in the State Party any more than it could in respect of substantive criminal law. As it has stated in App No 7151/75: Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden, series B:
Whether a right is at all at issue in a particular case depends primarily on the legal system of the State concerned. It is true that the concept of a 'right' is itself autonomous to some degree. Thus it is not decisive for the purposes of article 6(1) that a given privilege or interest which exists in the domestic system is not classified or described as a 'right' by that system. However, it is clear that the Convention organs could not create by way of interpretation of article 6(1) a substantive right which has no legal basis whatsoever in the State concerned."
1 Citers


 
Ozturk -v- Germany 8544/79; [1984] ECHR 1; [1984] ECHR 13; (1984) 6 EHRR 409; [1984] ECHR 1; [1984] ECHR 13; [1984] ECHR 13
21 Feb 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
A minor infringement may be the subject of a criminal charge: "If the Contracting States were able at their discretion, by classifying an offence as 'regulatory' instead of criminal, to exclude the operation of the fundamental clauses of Articles 6 and 7, the application of these provisions would be subordinated to their sovereign will. A latitude extending thus far might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. . . the indications furnished by the domestic law of the respondent State have only a relative value ... the very nature of the offence, considered also in relation to the nature of the corresponding penalty represents a factor of appreciation of greater weight." The first matter to be ascertained was "whether or not the text defining the offence in issue belongs, according to the legal system of the respondent state, to criminal law."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Sutter -v- Switzerland [1984] ECHR 2; 8209/78
22 Feb 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Luberti -v- Italy [1984] ECHR 3; 9019/80; [1984] ECHR 3
23 Feb 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings
[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kirkwood -v- The United Kingdom 10479/83; [1984] ECHR 19
12 Mar 1984
ECHR

Human Rights, Extradition
(Admissibility - Commission) The claimant, a United States national, said that the proceedings for his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States infringed article 6(3)(d), because he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the United Kingdom. Held: Although "the tasks of the Magistrates' Court included the assessment of whether or not there was, on the basis of the evidence, the outline of a case to answer against the applicant" and "[t]his necessarily involved a certain, limited, examination of the issues which would be decisive in the applicant's ultim[at]e trial", nevertheless, "these proceedings did not in themselves form part of the determination of the applicant's guilt or innocence, which will be the subject of separate proceedings in the United States which may be expected to conform to standards of fairness equivalent to the requirements of article 6, including the presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the committal proceedings". In these circumstances "the committal proceedings did not form part of or constitute the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention"
Article 1 of the Convention: The undertaking given by High Contracting Parties in respect of everyone within their jurisdiction extends, in the Article 3 sphere, to a duty not to expose anyone to an irremediable situation of objective danger, even outside their jurisdiction.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: Because Article 2 authorises capital punishment, pursuant to the law and a court sentence, this may create a long period of incertitude for the convicted person during the appeal proceedings in an elaborate judicial system. However, it cannot be held that this long period of uncertainty (the"death row phenomenon") falls outside the notion of inhuman treatment (Article 3).
The terms of Article 2 do not support the contention that if a State were to fail to require binding assurances from the Stale requesting extradition that the death penalty would not be inflicted, this would constitute treatment- contrary to Article 3.
Article 3 of the Convention; Factors to be considered in assessing whether the long period of uncertainty experienced by the person condemned to death, during the appeal procedures (the "death row phenomenon") amounts to inhuman treatment: the importance of the appeal system designed to protect the right to life, delays caused by the backlog of cases before the appeal courts, the possibility of a commutation of sentence by very reason of the duration of detention on "death row".
Article 6 of the Convention: This provision does not apply to a court's examination of an extradition request from a foreign State, even if the Court carries out an assessment of whether there is an outline of a criminal case to answer against the applicant.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Goddi -v- Italy [1984] ECHR 4; 8966/80; [1984] ECHR 4
9 Apr 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Harman -v- United Kingdom [1984] ECHR 24; (1985) 7 EHRR CD146; 10038/82
11 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights, Contempt of Court
ECHR Article 7 of the Convention: Allegedly unforeseeable conviction for the contempt of court (Complaint declared admissible).
Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention : Official documents produced in the course of discovery proceedings: solicitor found guilty of contempt of court notwithstanding that the documents had been read out in open court. Question of violation of right to impart information (Complaint declared admissible).
European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Van Der Sluijs, Zuiderveld And Klappe -v- The Netherlands 9387/81; 9362/81; 9363/81
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award.
[ ECHR ]
 
Duinhof And Duijf -v- The Netherlands 9626/81;9736/82; [1984] ECHR 6
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Questions of procedure rejected; Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award.
[ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
De Jong, Baljet And Van Den Brink -v- The Netherlands 8805/79;8806/79;9242/81; [1984] ECHR 5
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 14+5; Not necessary to examine Art. 13 and 18; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award.
[ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Van Der Sluijs, Zuiderveld And Klappe -v- The Netherlands 9362/81; [1984] ECHR 7
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Duinhof And Duijf -v- The Netherlands 9626/81; [1984] ECHR 6
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Van Der Sluijs, Zuiderveld And Klappe -v- The Netherlands 9362/81;9363/81;9387/81; [1984] ECHR 7
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Van Der Sluijs, Zuiderveld And Klappe -v- The Netherlands 9363/81; 9362/81
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award 9362/81; 9363/81; 9387/81

 
Duinhof And Duijf -v- The Netherlands 9626/81 ; 9736/82
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Questions of procedure rejected; Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

 
De Jong, Baljet And Van Den Brink -v- The Netherlands 8805/79; 9242/79; [1984] ECHR 5; 8806/79
22 May 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award 8805/79; 8806/79; 9242/81
[ Bailii ]
 
Campbell and Fell -v- The United Kingdom 7878/77; [1984] ECHR 8; 1984 7 EHRR 165; 7819/77
28 Jun 1984
ECHR

Prisons, Human Rights
Campbell and others had been involved in conduct within the prison leading to charges against them of mutiny and of striking an officer with a broom handle. The nature of the conduct in question was plainly susceptible of giving rise to criminal charges. Referring to the Engel Case, the court said: "The court was careful in the Engel and others judgment to state that, as regards the dividing line between the "criminal" and the "disciplinary", it was confining its attention to the sphere with which the case was concerned, namely military service. It is well aware that in the prison context there are practical reasons and reasons of policy for establishing a special disciplinary regime, for example, security considerations and the interests of public order, the need to deal with misconduct by inmates as expeditiously as possible, the availability of tailor made sanctions which may not be at the disposal of the ordinary courts and the desire of prison authorities to retain ultimate responsibility for discipline within their establishments." and continued 'In any event, the indications so afforded by the national law have only a relative value; the very nature of the offence is a fact of greater import. In this respect, it has to be borne in mind that misconduct by a prisoner may take different forms; certain acts are clearly no more than a question of internal discipline, whereas others cannot be seen in the same light. Firstly, some matters may be more serious than others; in fact, the Rules grade offences, classifying those committed by Mr Campbell as especially grave. Secondly the illegality of some acts may not turn on the fact that they were committed in prison: certain conduct which constitutes an offence under the Rules may also amount to an offence under the criminal law. Thus, doing gross personal violence to a prison officer may correspond to the crime of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and, although mutiny and incitement to mutiny are not as such offences under the general criminal law, the underlying facts may found a criminal charge of conspiracy. It also has to be remembered that, theoretically at least, there is nothing to prevent conduct of this kind being the subject of both criminal and disciplinary proceedings.'
Whilst there had been no breach of Article 6 in holding the hearing in private, there had been a breach in not making the decision public: "The Court has said in other cases that it does not feel bound to adopt a literal interpretation of the words 'pronounced publicly': in each case the form of publication given to the 'judgment' under the domestic law of the respondent State must be assessed in the light of special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object pursued by Article 6 in this context, namely to ensure scrutiny of the judiciary by the public with a view to safeguarding the right to a fair trial."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ]
 
Campbell And Fell -v- The United Kingdom 7878/77; [1984] ECHR 8; 7819/77
28 Jun 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Guincho -v- Portugal 8990/80; (1984) 7 EHRR 223; [1984] ECHR 9; [1984] ECHR 9
10 Jul 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award
Where there are multiple complaints or charges, about which delay is alleged, time should run from the earliest of them.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Malone -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 2-Aug-1984 - 8691/79; (1984) 7 EHRR 14; [1984] ECHR 10; [1985] ECHR 5
 
Terence Gallogly -v- United Kingdom 7990/77; [1984] ECHR 21
2 Oct 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Skoogstrom -v- Sweden 8582/79; [1984] ECHR 11; [1984] ECHR 11; [1983] ECHR 20
2 Oct 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Rui Versos -v- Portugal 10303/83; [1984] ECHR 22
11 Oct 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Sramek -v- Austria 8790/79; (1984) 7 EHRR 351; [1984] ECHR 12; [1984] ECHR 12
22 Oct 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
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
The appointment of a judicial figure, who was in a subordinate position to one of the parties to the litigation, might lead litigants to entertain legitimate doubts regarding the independence of that judicial figure.
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
De Cubber -v- Belgium 9186/80; (1985) 7 EHRR 236; [1984] ECHR 14; [1987] ECHR 22; [1984] EHRR 236; (1987) 13 EHRR 422; [1987] ECHR 22; [1984] ECHR 14
26 Oct 1984
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that there had been no breach of Article 6(1) was the submission that there was a right of appeal to an appellate courts which was accepted to be impartial; that the Belgian Court of Cassation had rightly held that the court hearing the case at first instance did not have to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(1), provided that the accused was able to appeal to a court that offered all the guarantees stipulated by Article 6(1) and was able to review all questions of fact and law. Held: The possibility of a fair trial on an appeal is not alone sufficient to compensate for a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the primary decision-maker. The contentions advanced by Belgium were rejected: "The thrust of the plea summarised above is that the proceedings before the Oudenaarde court fell outside the ambit of Article 6(1). At first sight, this plea contains an element of paradox. Article 6 (1) concerns primarily courts of first instance; it does not require the existence of courts of further instance. It is true that the fundamental guarantees, including impartiality, must also be provided by any courts of appeal or courts of cassation which a Contracting State may have chosen to set up. However, even when this is the case it does not follow that the lower courts do not have to provide the required guarantees. Such a result would be at variance with the intention underlying the creation of several levels of courts, namely, to reinforce the protection afforded to litigants. . . . At the hearings, the Commission's Delegate and the applicant's lawyer raised a further question, concerning not the applicability of Article 6 (1) but rather its application to the particular facts: had not the 'subsequent intervention' of the Ghent Court of Appeal 'made good the wrong' or 'purged' the first instance proceedings of the 'defect' that vitiated them? . . . The possibility certainly exists that a higher or the highest court might, in some circumstances, make reparation for an initial violation of one of the Convention's provisions: this is precisely the reason for the existence of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, contained in Article 26. Thus the Adolf judgment of 26 March 1982 noted that the Austrian Supreme Court had 'cleared … of any finding of guilt' an applicant in respect of whom a District Court had not respected the principle of presumption of innocence laid down by Article 6(2). The circumstances of the present case, however, were different. The particular defect in question did not bear solely upon the conduct of the first instance proceedings: its source being the very composition of the Oudenaarde criminal court, the defect concerned matters of internal organisation, and the Court of Appeal did not cure that defect since it did not quash on that ground the judgment of 29 June 1979 in its entirety".
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
McGoff -v- Sweden 9017/80; [1984] ECHR 15; [1984] ECHR 15
26 Oct 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Rasmussen -v- Denmark 8777/79; (1984) 7 EHRR 371; [1984] ECHR 17; [1984] ECHR 17
28 Nov 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
Article 14 requires a complainant of discrimination to show that the complaint falls within the "ambit" of some substantive Convention right.
European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
S And S -v- United Kingdom 10375/83; [1984] ECHR 20
10 Dec 1984
ECHR

Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Sporrong and Lonnroth -v- Sweden (1983) 5 EHRR 35; 7152/75; 7151/75; [1984] ECHR 18; [1982] ECHR 5
18 Dec 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is reflected in the structure of Article 1 as a whole. The requisite balance will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and excessive burden.
European Convention on Human Rights 50
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Sporrong And Lonnroth -v- Sweden 7152/75; 7151/75; [1984] ECHR 18
18 Dec 1984
ECHR

Human Rights
(Article 50)
European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 

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