

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. Â
		Human Rights - From: 1985 To: 1989 This page lists 179 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015. Â Colloza and Rubinat -v- Italy [1985] 7 EHRR 516 1985 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 308; 10914/84 1985 ECHR Human Rights (Commission ) The first applicant (a Moroccan) had come to the Netherlands and obtained a residence permit on the strength of a permanent relationship with a Dutch woman. That had failed, but he now wished to marry another Dutch national. The applicants complained that they were not to be allowed to marry. They were both present in the Netherlands. They would be prevented from marrying because of a decision to expel the intended husband to Morocco. They then went to Morocco and married. The first applicant then obtained a residence permit to stay with his wife in the Netherlands. Held: The claim was manifestly ill-founded: "Act 12 of the Convention does not guarantee the right to marry in a particular country, or under a particular legal system." The prospect of marriage need not disrupt the ordinary course of immigration control. European Convention on Human Rights 12 1 Citers Â In re a solicitor: H -v- United Kingdom 8083/77; [1980] ECC 493 1985 ECHR Human Rights, Legal Professions European Convention on Human Rights 5 1 Citers Â H -v- United Kingdom 11653/85 1985 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1973 for committing a murder in the course of a robbery. Held: The penalty for this offence at the time it was committed was life imprisonment and thus no issue under Art. 7 (art. 7) arises in this respect. The "penalty" for purposes of Art. 7, para 1 (art. 7-1), must be considered to be that of life imprisonment. Nevertheless as a result of the change in parole policy the applicant would not become eligible for release on parole until he had served 20 years' imprisonment. Although this may give rise to the result that his imprisonment is effectively harsher than if he had been eligible for release on parole at an earlier stage, such matters relate to the execution of the imprisonment as opposed to the "penalty" which remains that of life imprisonment. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the "penalty" imposed is a heavier one than that imposed by the trial judge. The Commission rejected the application as manifestly ill-founded. 1 Citers Â Dyer -v- United Kingdom Application No 10475/83; (1985) 7 EHRR 469 1985 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Colozza -v- Italy 9024/80; [1987] 7 EHRR 516; [1985] ECHR 1; (1985) 7 EHRR 516 12 Feb 1985 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence. Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: "the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person 'charged with a criminal offence' is entitled to take part in the hearing. Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph (3) guarantee to 'everyone charged with a criminal offence' the right 'to defend himself in person', 'to examine or have examined witnesses' and 'to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court', and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rubinat -v- Italy [1985] ECHR 2; 9317/81; [1985] ECHR 2 12 Feb 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barthold -v- Germany 8734/79; (1985) 7 EHRR 383; [1986] ECHR 1; [1985] ECHR 3 25 Mar 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 10; Just satisfaction reserved Any claim to derogation from a convention right must be 'convincingly established'. 1 Citers [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â X and Y -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 26-Mar-1985 - 8978/80; (1985) 8 EHRR 235; [1985] ECHR 4 Â Malone -v- The United Kingdom 8691/79; [1985] ECHR 5 26 Apr 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bonisch -v- Austria 8658/79; (1985) 13 EHRR 409; [1986] ECHR 5; [1985] ECHR 6 6 May 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc ". . . in the present case an award of just satisfaction can only be based on the fact that the applicant did not have, before the Austrian courts, the benefit of the guarantees of Article 6(1)." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tejendrasingh -v- The United Kingdom 8231/78; [1985] ECHR 12 13 May 1985 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Ashingdane -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-1985 - 8225/78; (1985) 7 EHRR 528; [1985] ECHR 8; 14/1983/70/106; [1985] ECHR 8 Â Â Abdulaziz etc -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-1985 - 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/80; (1985) 7 EHRR 471; [1985] ECHR 7 Â Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali -v- United Kingdom 9473/81; [1985] ECHR 7; 9214/80; 9474/81; (1985) 7 EHRR 471 28 May 1985 ECHR Human Rights The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them. European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 [ Bailii ] Â Vallon -v- Italy [1985] ECHR 9; 9621/81; [1985] ECHR 9 3 Jun 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Can -v- Austria 9300/81; [1985] ECHR 10; [1985] ECHR 10 30 Sep 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Johansen -v- Norway Unreported, 14 October 1985 14 Oct 1985 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) A pacifist objected to civilian substitute service on the ground that it tended to uphold respect for military service. Held: The complaint was inadmissible. Referring to article 4(3)(b): "The Convention does not prevent a state from taking measures to enforce performance of civilian service, or from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service." European Convention on Human Rights 4(3)(b) 1 Citers Â Benthem -v- The Netherlands 8848/80; [1985] ECHR 11; (1985) 8 EHRR 1 23 Oct 1985 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â W -v- United Kingdom 10787/84; [1985] ECHR 112 2 Dec 1985 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Andersson and Kullman -v- Sweden; ECHR 1986 - (1986) 46 DR 251 Â Allgemiene Gold- und Silberscheideanstalt -v- United Kingdom 9118/80; (1986) 9 EHRR 1; [1986] ECHR 13; [1986] ECHR 13 1986 ECHR Human Rights The court considered arrangements for challenging the impounding of a motor vehicle. Held: The fact that a smuggler had recourse to the courts, even though the decision could only successfully be challenged if it was one which a publich authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could not have reached, provided a remedy sufficient to satisfy the applicant's human rights. European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol Art 1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â S -v- United Kingdom [1986] 47 D&R 274 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination, Housing The applicant was not entitled in domestic law to succeed to a tenancy on the death of her partner. The aim of the legislation is question was to protect the family, a goal similar to the protection of the right to respect for family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The aim itself is clearly legitimate. The question remains, however, whether it was justified to protect families but not to give similar protection to other stable relationships. The Commission considers that the family (to which the relationship of heterosexual unmarried couples living together as husband and wife can be assimilated) merits special protection in society and it sees no reason why a High Contracting Power should not afford particular assistance to families. The Commission therefore accepted that the difference in treatment between the applicant and somebody in the same position whose partner had been of the opposite sex can be objectively and reasonably justified. And "The Commission notes that the applicant was occu?ying the house, of which her partner had been the tenant, without any legal title whatsoever. Contractual relations were established between the local authority and the deceased partner and that contractual agreement may or may not have permitted long-term visitors. The fact remains, however, that on the death of the partner, under the ordinary law, the applicant was no longer entitled to remain in the house, and the local authority was entitled to possession so that the house could no longer be regarded as 'home' for the applicant within the meaning of Article 8." European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â K -v- United Kingdom (1986) 50 DR 199 1986 Human Rights The existence of a close personal relationship between adults and their children or as between adults and their own parents will of necessity be capable of being construed as family life. 1 Citers Â Â Lindsay -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1986 - (1986) 9 EHRR 513; (1986) 9 EHRR CD 555 Â S -v- United Kingdom 11716/85; (1986) 47 DR 274 1986 ECHR Human Rights A stable homosexual relationship between two men does not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life, but that such a relationship may be a matter affecting private life 1 Citers Â K -v- United Kingdom (1986) 50 DR 199 1986 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) The existence of family ties depends upon "the real existence in practice of close family ties." 1 Citers Â Z and E v Austria (1986) 49 DR 67 1986 ECHR Human Rights The state must act in a manner calculated to allow those concerned to lead a normal family life. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â Barthold -v- Germany (Article 50) [1985] ECHR 3; [1986] ECHR 1; 8734/79 31 Jan 1986 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay; HL 19-Feb-1986 - [1987] AC 514; [1987] 2 WLR 606; [1986] UKHL 3; [1987] 1 All ER 940; [1987] Imm AR 250 Â Â James and Others -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 21-Feb-1986 - 8793/79; (1986) 8 EHRR 123; [1986] ECHR 2; Series A no 98; [1986] RVR 139; 8 EHRR 123123 Â Hogben -v- United Kingdom 11653/85 3 Mar 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing 1 Citers Â Feldbrugge -v- The Netherlands (1986) 6 EHRR 425; 8562/79; [1986] ECHR 4; [1987] ECHR 18; [1987] ECHR 18; [1986] ECHR 4 29 May 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Administrative The court was asked whether the applicant's entitlement to a statutory sickness allowance, which was a contributory scheme but for which she had not registered due to illness, was a civil right within the meaning of article 6. Held: The applicant claimed a right "flowing from specific rules laid down by the legislation in force" and that the right in question was "a personal, economic and individual right", a factor which brought it close to the civil sphere. Taking account of the affinity of the statutory scheme with insurance under the ordinary law, the features of private law predominated and they conferred on her entitlement the character of a civil right within the meaning of the article. The minority were unable to persuade the majority to restrict the application of article 6, in the civil sphere, to rights and obligations in private law. "The judicialisation of dispute procedures, as guaranteed by article 6(1), is eminently appropriate in the realm of relations between individuals but not necessarily so in the administrative sphere, where organisational, social and economic considerations may legitimately warrant dispute procedures of a less judicial and formal kind." Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Deumeland -v- Germany 9384/81; [1986] ECHR 3; (1986) 8 EHRR 448; [1986] ECHR 3 29 May 1986 ECHR Human Rights Although the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the dispute, its decision was "capable of affecting the outcome of the claim". The court considered a widow's supplementary pension arising from her husband's death in an industrial accident. Held. "The widow . . was not affected in her relations with the public authorities as such, acting in the exercise of discretionary powers, but in her personal capacity as a private individual. She was claiming a right flowing from specific rules laid down by the legislation in force. The right in question was a personal, economic and individual right, a factor that brought it close to the civil sphere." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bonisch -v- Austria (Article 50) [1985] ECHR 6; [1986] ECHR 5; 8658/79 2 Jun 1986 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Van Marle And Others -v- The Netherlands 8543/79;8674/79;8675/79;...; [1986] ECHR 6 26 Jun 1986 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Van Marle And Others -v- The Netherlands [1986] ECHR 6; 8543/79; 8675/79; 8674/79; (1986) 8 EHRR 483 26 Jun 1986 ECHR Human Rights The applicants were accountants who had practised as such for some years when a new statute came into force which required then to register. Their applications were refused. Held: Article 1PI was engaged. In paragraphs 41 and 42 the Court said this: "The Court agrees with the Commission that the right relied upon by the applicants may be likened to the right of property embodied in Article 1: by dint of their own work, the applicants had built up a clientele: this had in many respects the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and, hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1. This provision was accordingly applicable in the present case. The refusal to register the applicants as certified accountants radically affected the conditions of their professional activities and the scope of those activities was reduced. Their income fell, as did the value of their clientele and, more generally, their business. Consequently, there was interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] Â Lingens -v- Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407; 9815/82; [1986] ECHR 7 8 Jul 1986 ECHR Ryssdal P Human Rights, Defamation, Media Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society'. "The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance. No doubt article 10(2) enables the reputation of others--that is to say, of all individuals--to be protected, and this protection extends to politicians too, even when they are not acting in their private capacity; but in such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues." European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lithgow And Others -v- The United Kingdom 9006/80; 9263/81; [1986] ECHR 8; (1986) 8 EHRR 329; 9262/81 8 Jul 1986 ECHR R Ryssdal, President Human Rights, Commercial ECHR No violation of P1-1. The phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law" requires the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions. As to the need for a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised, and the requirement that a balance must be struck between the general interest to the community and protection of the individual's fundamental rights, the taking of property without reasonable compensation would normally constitute a disproportionate interference. The applicants complained of the nationalisation of their industries under the 1977 Act. Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 - European Convention on Human Rigts P1A1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lithgow And Others -v- The United Kingdom 9006/80; 9262/81; [1986] 8 EHRR 329; [1986] ECHR 8 8 Jul 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Damages Convention jurisprudence permits a proportionate restriction on access to a court, provided the essential rights that are in contest from a Convention point of view are not thereby rendered nugatory. The court considered the economic policies which underlay the nationalisation of shipbuilding companies. The assessment of compensation in a nationalisation case was particularly complex and called for different considerations from those which applied to the compulsory acquisition of land where legislation applicable across the board was required. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lithgow And Others -v- The United Kingdom 9262/81; [1986] ECHR 8; 9006/80; 9263/81; (1986) 8 EHRR 329 8 Jul 1986 ECHR Human Rights The applicants complained that on the nationalisation of their interests under the 1977 Act, the compensation awarded had been inadequate and did not reflect their true value. European Convention on Human Rights - Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 [ Bailii ] Â Glasenapp -v- Germany 9228/80; [1986] ECHR 9; [1986] ECHR 9 28 Aug 1986 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 10 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kosiek -v- Germany 9704/82; [1986] ECHR 10; [1986] ECHR 10 28 Aug 1986 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); No violation of Art. 10 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â P -v- United Kingdom (1987) 54 DR 211 13 Oct 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Immigration European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Rees -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 17-Oct-1986 - 9532/81; (1986) 9 EHRR 56; [1986] ECHR 11 Â Â Sanchez-Reisse -v- Switzerland; ECHR 21-Oct-1986 - [1986] ECHR 12; 9862/82; (1986) 9 EHRR 71 Â Sanchez-Reisse -v- Switzerland 9862/82; [1986] ECHR 12 21 Oct 1986 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â AGOSI -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 24-Oct-1986 - 9118/80; (1986) 9 EHRR 1; Series A no. 108 Â Unterpertinger -v- Austria 9120/80; [1986] ECHR 15; (1986) 13 EHRR 175; [1986] ECHR 15 24 Nov 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Evidence The defendant was convicted of causing actual bodily harm, mainly on the basis of statements which his wife and daughter had given to the police. His wife and daughter took advantage of their right not to give evidence at his trial and so could not be cross-examined on their statements. Held: Where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6. The reading out of statements of witnesses without the witness being heard in a public hearing could not be regarded as being inconsistent with Article 6(1) and 3(d) of the Convention but it went on to emphasise that the use made of this in evidence had nevertheless to comply with the rights of the defence which it was the object and purpose of Article 6 to protect. This meant that, in principle, the accused had to be given a proper and adequate opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when the witness made the statement or at a later stage. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gillow -v- The United Kingdom 9063/80; (1986) 11 EHRR 335; 13/1984/85/132; [1986] ECHR 14; [1987] ECHR 23; [1987] ECHR 23; [1986] ECHR 14 24 Nov 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Housing The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there. Held: The house in question was the applicants' home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not established any other home elsewhere in the United Kingdom and had retained "sufficient continuing links" with the house for it to be considered their home for the purposes of article 8. "It was . . established that the island of Guernsey should be regarded as a 'territory for the international relations of which the U.K. is responsible' for the purposes of treaty provisions in the terms of Article 4 of this Protocol; and this practice has been followed with regard to treaties concluded within the framework of the Council of Europe including the Convention (Article [56]). It thus clearly results from the text of Article 4 that an express declaration is required for the application of the Protocol to the island of Guernsey". The United Kingdom had not made a declaration extending the Protocol to Guernsey and the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Palma -v- United Kingdom 11949/86; [1986] ECHR 19; (1986) 10 EHRR 149 1 Dec 1986 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Di Palma -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1-Dec-1986 - (1986) 10 EHRR 149; 11949/86 Â Johnston and Others -v- Ireland [1986] ECHR 17; 9697/82; [1986] 9 EHRR 203 18 Dec 1986 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The applicants were an unmarried couple who could not marry, and so legitimate their daughter, the third applicant, because the Irish Constitution did not permit divorce. They relied on article 14 in conjunction with article 8, arguing that they had been discriminated against on grounds of their limited financial means, since (had they been better off) they could have obtained a divorce by the expedient of a spell of residence outside the Republic. Held: The complaint was rejected in short measure: "Article 14 safeguards persons who are 'placed in analogous situations' against discriminatory differences of treatment in the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention. The court notes that under the general Irish rules of private international law foreign divorces will be recognised in Ireland only if they have been obtained by persons domiciled abroad. It does not find it to have been established that these rules are departed from in practice. In its view, the situations of such persons and of the first and second applicants cannot be regarded as analogous." European Convention on Human Rights 814 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bozano -v- France [1987] ECHR 31; [1986] ECHR 16; 9990/82; [1987] ECHR 31; [1986] ECHR 16 18 Dec 1986 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - claim partially rejected; Just satisfaction partially reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Edwards Books and Art Ltd; 18-Dec-1986 - [1986] 2 SCR 713; (1986) 35 DLR (4th) 1; 30 CCC (3d) 385; 86 CLLC 14; 55 CR (3d) 193 Â Â Vaughan -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1987 - 12639/87 Â Â B -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1987 - (1987) 10 EHRR 87 Â M -v- United Kingdom (1987) 52 DR 269 1987 ECHR Human Rights The protection of those responsible for the care of mental patients from being harassed by litigation is a legitimate objective. 1 Citers Â G -v- Germany [1989] ECHR 28; 13079/87 1987 ECHR CA Norgaard, P Human Rights (Commission) The applicants had conducted a sit-in, to protest against nuclear arms, and which obstructed a highway, which gave access to a US army barracks in Germany, for twelve minutes every hour. Held: Applying the authorities, the Commission said that it considered that 'the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is secured to everyone who organises or participates in a peaceful demonstration.' However, it went on to say that: "[T]he applicant's conviction for having participated in a sit-in can reasonably be considered as necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and crime. In this respect, the Commission considers especially that the applicant had not been punished for his participation in the demonstration . . as such, but for particular behaviour in the course of the demonstration, namely the blocking of a public road, thereby causing more obstruction than would normally arise from the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly. The applicant and the other demonstrators had thereby intended to attract broader public attention to their political opinions concerning nuclear armament. However, balancing the public interest in the prevention of disorder and the interest of the applicant and the other demonstrators in choosing the particular form of a sit-in, the applicant's conviction for the criminal offence of unlawful coercion does not appear disproportionate to the aims pursued." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â W -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1987 - (1987) 10 EHRR 29 Â Â Council of Civil Service Unions -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 20-Jan-1987 - 11603/85; [1987] ECHR 34; (1988) 10 EHRR CD269 Â Â Regina -v- Board of Visitors of the Maze Prison, ex Parte Hone; HL 21-Jan-1987 - [1988] AC 379; [1988] 2 WLR 177; [1988] 1 All ER 321; [1987] UKHL 9 Â Weeks -v- The United Kingdom Times, 05 March 1987; 9787/82; (1988) 10 EHRR 293; [2008] ECHR 18; [1987] ECHR 3 2 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Prisons The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous. Held: "The court agrees with the Commission and the applicant that the clearly stated purpose for which [the] sentence was imposed, taken together with the particular facts pertaining to the offence for which he was convicted, places the sentence in a special category." In substance, Mr Weeks was being put at the disposal of the state because he needed continued supervision in custody for an unforeseeable length of time and, as a corollary, periodic reassessment in order to ascertain the most appropriate way of dealing with him, and added: "The grounds expressly relied on by the sentencing courts for ordering this form of deprivation of liberty against Mr Weeks are by their very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time, whereas the measure will remain in force for the whole of his life. In this, his sentence differs from a life sentence imposed on a person because of the gravity of the offence." The Parole Board for England and Wales has the necessary independence to constitute a "court" for the purposes of Article 5(4). In considering whether the prisoner should be released, the Board will consider whether the prisoner remains a danger to the public. The freedom enjoyed by a discretionary life sentence prisoner on licence is "more circumscribed in law and more precarious than the freedom enjoyed by the ordinary citizen" but is, nonetheless, a state of liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the Convention. European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â MathieuMohin and Clerfayt -v- Belgium; ECHR 2-Mar-1987 - 9267/81; (1987) 10 EHRR 1; [1987] ECHR 1; (1988) 10 EHRR 1 Â Monnell And Morris -v- The United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 205; 9562/81; 9818/82; [1987] ECHR 2 2 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; No violation of Art. 14+5; No violation of Art. 14+6 The applicants had unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed their applications at a hearing at which, in accordance with the normal procedure, they were neither present nor represented. It ordered that part of the time that they had spent in custody after conviction should not count towards service of the sentences that had been imposed on them at first instance. Held: The court rejected the applicants' submission that there had been a breach of article 6 because they were not given the opportunity to be present in person and to submit oral arguments as to why they should not be subjected to an extension of their deprivation of liberty. The interests of justice and fairness could be met by the applicants being able to present relevant considerations through making written submissions. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Monnell And Morris -v- The United Kingdom 9562/81;9818/82; [1987] ECHR 2 2 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Mathieu MOHIN AND CLERFAYT v. BELGIUM - 9267/81; [1987] ECHR 1 2 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Webster -v- United Kingdom 12118/86 4 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons (Commission) An American citizen was detained in England, and eventually deported to France. He complained that there was discrimination against foreign nationals, who did not challenge orders for deportation but sought parole. That was disputed by the Secretary of State, and the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated, but the Commission did consider the jurisdictional issue. It noted that having been sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment the applicant could have been expected to serve that sentence, but the Commission went on to say that: "If a prisoner pre-release scheme were operated in a discriminatory manner, an issue could arise under Article 5 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14." European Convention on Human Rights 5 14 1 Citers Â R -v- Switzerland 10881/84 4 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights, Arbitration (Commission) "whereas the inclusion of an arbitration clause in an agreement between individuals amounts legally to partial renunciation of the exercise of those rights defined by Article 6 para. 1; whereas nothing in the text of that Article nor of any other article of the Convention explicitly prohibits such renunciation; whereas the Commission is not entitled to assume that the Contracting States, in accepting the obligations arising under Article 6 para. 1, intended to prevent persons coming under their jurisdiction from entrusting the settlement of certain matters to arbitrators; whereas the disputed arbitration clause might have been regarded as contrary to the Convention if X. had signed it under constraint, which was not the case." 1 Citers Â Leander -v- Sweden [1987] 9 EHRR 433; 9248/81; [1987] ECHR 4 26 Mar 1987 ECHR Human Rights, Police, Information Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander complained that he should have been provided with the information in question, and should have been given the chance to refute it. He submitted that Article 10 conferred a right of access to Government records and a positive obligation upon the State to disclose the contents of its file to him upon request. Held: His submission failed. Article 10 did not "in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on an individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position". Proceedings before an Appeals Board and the possibility of interim injunction proceedings taken together provided the applicants with an effective remedy. Both the storage of private information in a secret police register and its release, coupled with a refusal to allow an opportunity to refute it, were an interference with the right to respect for private life. "The Court observes that the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him. Article 10 does not, in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual. There has thus been no interference with Mr. Leander's freedom to receive information, as protected by Article 10." European Convention on Human Rights 13 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erkner And Hofauer -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 5; [1987] ECHR 24; 9616/81; [1987] ECHR 5; [1987] ECHR 24 23 Apr 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ettl And Others -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 6; 9273/81; [1987] ECHR 6 23 Apr 1987 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lechner And Hess -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 7; 9316/81; (1987) 9 EHRR 490; [1987] ECHR 7 23 Apr 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Poiss -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 25; [1987] ECHR 8; 9816/82; [1987] ECHR 8; [1987] ECHR 25 23 Apr 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dhoest -v- Belgium 10448/83 14 May 1987 ECHR Human Rights The Commission considered the conditions of detention in solitary confinement in a mental institution. Held: In assessing whether a measure 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. 1 Citers Â Milasi -v- Italy [1987] ECHR 11; 10527/83; [1987] ECHR 11 25 Jun 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Baggetta -v- Italy; ECHR 25-Jun-1987 - [1987] ECHR 9; 10256/83 Â Â Capuano -v- Italy; ECHR 25-Jun-1987 - [1987] ECHR 10; 9381/81 Â B -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 8; [1987] ECHR 12; 9840/82; [1987] ECHR 12 8 Jul 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â W -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 12; [1987] ECHR 17; 9749/82 8 Jul 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â O -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 10; [1987] ECHR 15; 9276/81; 9276/81; [1988] ECHR 10; [1987] ECHR 15 8 Jul 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baraona -v- Portugal [1987] ECHR 13; 10092/82; [1987] ECHR 13 8 Jul 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 11; [1987] ECHR 16; 10496/83; [1988] ECHR 11; [1987] ECHR 16 8 Jul 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Howard -v- United Kingdom 10825/84 16 Jul 1987 ECHR Human Rights Acquisition of Land Act 1981 23 1 Citers Â Â Attorney General -v- Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.1); HL 13-Aug-1987 - [1987] UKHL 13; [1987] 1 WLR 1248; [1987] 3 All ER 316 Â Nolkenbockhoff -v- Germany 10300/83; [1987] ECHR 21; [1987] ECHR 21 25 Aug 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (victim); No violation of Art. 6-2 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Englert -v- Germany 10282/83; [1987] ECHR 19; [1987] ECHR 19 25 Aug 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-2 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lutz -v- Germany 9912/82; [1987] ECHR 20; (1987) 10 EHRR 182; [1987] ECHR 20 25 Aug 1987 ECHR Human Rights Only criminal charges attract the additional protections under article 6(2) and 6(3). Insofar as these provisions apply to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" it is well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that this concept is co-extensive with the concept of the determination of any criminal charge. As to whether a successful defendant was entitled to an award of costs in his favour: The Court points out, first of all, like the Commission and the Government, that neither Article 6 (2) nor any other provision of the Convention gives a person 'charged with a criminal offence' a right to reimbursement of his costs where proceedings taken against him are discontinued. The refusal to reimburse Mr Lutz for his necessary costs and expenses accordingly does not in itself offend the presumption of innocence. Counsel for the applicant moreover stated, in reply to a question from the President, that his client was not challenging that refusal but solely the reasons given for it. Nevertheless, a decision refusing reimbursement of an accused's necessary costs and expenses following termination of proceedings may raise an issue under Article 6 (2) if supporting reasoning which cannot be dissociated from the operative provisions amounts in substance to a determination of the accused's guilt without his having previously been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of the defence." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erkner And Hofauer -v- Austria (Article 50) 9616/81 29 Sep 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Poiss -v- Austria (Article 50) 9816/82 29 Sep 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â MC -v- The United Kingdom [1987] ECHR 33; 11882/85 7 Oct 1987 ECHR Norgaard P Human Rights, Employment, Crime (Commission - Admissibility) [ Bailii ] Â Â Vilvarajah and Another -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department; CA 26-Oct-1987 - [1987] EWCA Civ 11 Â Boden -v- Sweden (1987) 10 EHRR 367; 10930/84; [1987] ECHR 26 27 Oct 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pudas -v- Sweden 10426/83; [1987] ECHR 27; (1987) 10 EHRR 380 27 Oct 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Inze -v- Austria (1987) 10 EHRR 394; 8695/79; [1987] ECHR 28; [1987] ECHR 28 28 Oct 1987 ECHR Human Rights Art 14 was engaged in respect of discrimination over future interests despite Marckx. The case turned on what singular provisions of Austrian inheritance law, whereby the illegitimate claimant had some, but incomplete, rights on his mother’s intestacy. The claim was not exclusively in respect of future rights, which the Court relied on in distinguishing Marckx. European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ben Yaacoub -v- Belgium 9976/82; [1987] ECHR 29; [1987] ECHR 29 27 Nov 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H -v- Belgium (1987) 10 EHRR 339; 8950/80; (1987) 10 EHRR 339; [1987] ECHR 30; [1987] ECHR 30 30 Nov 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings It is for domestic law to determine the extent and content of a person's civil rights. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bozano -v- France (Article 50) 9990/82 2 Dec 1987 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Â Regina -v- Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran; HL 16-Dec-1987 - [1988] AC 958; [1987] UKHL 1; [1988] 1 All ER 193; [1988] Imm AR 147; [1988] 2 WLR 92; [2002] INLR 310 Â Â F -v- Switzerland; ECHR 18-Dec-1987 - (1987) 10 EHRR 411; 11329/85; [1987] ECHR 32 Â In Re KD (A Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806 1988 HL Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Templeman Children, Human Rights The local authority sought to terminate parental contact with a child taken into care under a wardship. Held. The court had to consider the human rights of the parent as against the welfare interest of the child. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: "My Lords I do not, for my part, discern any conflict between the propositions laid down by your Lordships' House in J. v C. and the pronouncements of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the natural parent's right of access to her child. Such conflict as exists, is, I think, semantic only and lies only in differing ways of giving expression to the single concept that the natural bond in the relationship between parent and child gives rise to universally recognised norms which ought not to be gratuitously interfered with and which, if interfered with at all, ought to be so only if the welfare of the child dictates it. The word "right" is used in a variety of different senses, both popular and jurisprudential . . Parenthood, in most civilised societies, is generally conceived of as conferring upon parents the exclusive privilege of ordering, within the family, the upbringing of children of tender age, with all that that entails. That is a privilege which, interfered with without authority, would be protected by the courts, but it is a privilege circumscribed by many limitations imposed both by the general law and, where circumstances demand, by the courts or by the authorities upon whom the legislature has imposed the duty of supervising the welfare of children and young persons. When the jurisdiction of the court is invoked for the protection of the child the parental privileges do not terminate. They do, however, become immediately subservient to the paramount consideration which the court has always in mind, that is to say, the welfare of the child. That is the basis of the decision of your Lordships' House in J. v C. [1970] A.C. 668 and I see nothing in R. v United Kingdom (Case 6/1986/104/152) which contradicts or casts any doubt upon that decision or which calls now for any re-appraisal of it by your Lordships. In particular the description of those familial rights and privileges enjoyed by parents in relation to their children as "fundamental" or "basic" does nothing, in my judgment, to clarify either the nature or the extent of the concept which it is sought to describe." Lord Templeman said: "Public authorities cannot improve on nature." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Chundawadra -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal; CA 1988 - [1988] IAR 161 Â Regina -v- Dyment (1988) 45 CCC (3d) 244 1988 CCC La Forest J Human Rights The court referred to "informational privacy" - "This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit." 1 Citers Â E -v- United Kingdom [1988] 10 ECHRR 141 1988 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Weatherall -v- Canada 1988 l FC 369 1988 Strayer J Commonwealth, Prisons, Human Rights (Canada) One of the limitations on a prisoner's rights arising out of his conviction and imprisonment was his subjection to searches necessary for the security and good order of the prison: "Nevertheless, such searches should be subject to some control to ensure that they are truly used for the purposes which justify this infringement of normal human rights. I have concluded that while there is a place for routine skin searches without the need for prior authorization specific to that search, and without the need for showing reasonable and probable cause to suspect the particular inmate searched to be concealing some forbidden item, the circumstances in which such routine searches are authorized should be laid down by Regulation. Such rules will have to be, in themselves, reasonable in identifying situations in which, by reason of probability of, or opportunity for, concealment of contraband, or the need for deterrence of smuggling, a routine strip search is justified in the public interest. As for non-routine searches, I can see no reason why there should not also be some legal rules providing for such situations. There might be, for example, a rule providing that, in case of an immediate and specific security or enforcement problem, a general skin search could be conducted of all or a certain group of inmates. This could arise, for example, where an inmate has been stabbed in a cell block and it is thought necessary to skin search all inmates there for the weapon. But where, apart from such routine or general skin searches, individual inmates are to be skin searched, there should be a rule requiring those conducting the search to have reasonable and probable cause for believing that the inmate in question is concealing some prohibited matter on his person. Where time or circumstances do not permit those conducting non-routine searches to obtain authority from a superior officer, there should be some meaningful requirement of review by such superior officer after the event." 1 Citers Â Bouamar -v- Belgium (1988) 11 EHRR 1; 9106/80; [1988] ECHR 1; [1988] ECHR 16; (1987) 11 EHRR 1; [1988] ECHR 1; [1988] ECHR 16 29 Feb 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Children, Education Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved; Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) A person detained as a juvenile in need of educational supervision should not be detained in a prison where no education is available. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Karni -v- Sweden 11540/88; (1988) 55 DR 157 8 Mar 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Health Professions (Commission) The applicant was a doctor who, on his return to Sweden, was entered on the list of those affiliated to the Social Security System which meant he could carry on a private medical practice and receive payment for treatment provided to those who might otherwise not be able to pay. New rules meant that he was removed from the list and so the investments he had made in equipment were lost and his practice closed down. The Commission decided that the loss of his affiliation did not amount to deprivation of a possession since he would, at least in theory, continue to practise with patients who would pay. But the Commission considered that 'the vested interests in the applicant's medical practice may be regarded as "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1PI'. It said: "The question of affiliation to the Social Insurance system was a decisive element for the running of the practice." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Olsson -v- Sweden (No 1) Times, 28 March 1988; [1988] Series A No 130; 10465/83; (1988) 11 EHRR 259 24 Mar 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The requirements identified as flowing from the phrase "in accordance with the law" include this: "A norm cannot be regarded as a 'law' unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail; however, experience shows that absolute precision is unattainable and the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague." and "[The] notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." 1 Citers Â Boyle And Rice -v- The United Kingdom 9659/82; 9658/82 27 Apr 1988 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings. 1 Citers [ ECHR ] Â Boyle And Rice -v- The United Kingdom 9658/82; [1988] ECHR 3; 9659/82 27 Apr 1988 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Boyle and Rice -v- The United Kingdom Times, 13 May 1988; 9659/82; 9658/82; [1988] ECHR 3 27 Apr 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The first applicant had been convicted and sentenced for murder and subsequent acts of violence within prison. Whilst in prison he discovered an aptitude for writing and sculpture. Whilst on a special regime he was given certain privileges, but was then transferred to a standard regime pending his release on licence, losing those privileges. He complained that a letter had been stopped on the ground that it might be published. The second applicant also complained aboiut the reading of private correspondence by the prisons. Held: The stopping of the letter did infringe the first applicant's human rights. A claim could be considered by the court even though it had been dismissed by the Commission. The remedies available to him for these breaches were adequate, and the facts of the case disclosed no violation of Article 13 . European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Belilos -v- Switzerland 10328/83; (1988) 10 EHRR 466; [1988] ECHR 4; [1988] ECHR 4 29 Apr 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (validity of declaration); Violation of Art. 6-1; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Lack of jurisdiction (cancellation and refund of fine); Lack of jurisdiction (legislative amendment) The applicant had been convicted for having participated in an unauthorised demonstration. The procedure before the Police Board and the higher courts, which heard her appeal did not conform with the requirements of Article 6(1) because the Police Board's single member was a lawyer from the police headquarters. That appointed member could not be dismissed during his term of office and his personal impartiality had not been called into question, but there were no safeguards given to ensure that the appointed member acted independently and impartially, other than his limited security of tenure and that he took a different oath from that taken by policemen. The requirement of independence did not appear in the text of the oath. Held: "the ordinary citizen will tend to see [the member of the Police Board] as a member of the police force subordinate to his superiors and loyal to his colleagues. A stipulation of this kind may undermine the confidence which must be inspired by the courts in a democratic society" 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Muller And Others -v- Switzerland; ECHR 24-May-1988 - 10737/84; [1988] ECHR 5; (1988) 13 EHRR 212 Â Â Muller And Others -v- Switzerland; ECHR 24-May-1988 - 10737/84; [1988] ECHR 5; (1988) 13 EHRR 212 Â Ekbatani -v- Sweden 10465/83; [1988] 13 EHRR 504; [1988] ECHR 2; 10563/83; [1988] ECHR 6; [1988] ECHR 2; [1988] ECHR 6 26 May 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The defendant was convicted of threatening a civil servant. His appeal was dealt with without a hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed the decision. Held: Though the Court confirmed that if there had been a public hearing at first instance, and the absence of a public hearing before a second or third instance tribunal might be justified, and since the Court of Appeal had to make what a "full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence" its re-examination of the conviction ought to have comprised a full rehearing. "…..it flows from the notion of a fair trial that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle, be entitled to be present at the trial hearing". European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pauwels -v- Belgium [1988] ECHR 7; 10208/82; [1988] ECHR 7 26 May 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â B -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 9840/82 9 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Cites Â H -v- The United Kingdom [1987] 10 EHRR 95; 9580/81; [1988] ECHR 9; [1987] ECHR 14; [1988] ECHR 9; [1987] ECHR 14 9 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Children Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 8; Just satisfaction reserved Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Article 8 was infringed by delay in the conduct of access and adoption proceedings because the proceedings "lay within an area in which procedural delay may lead to a de facto determination of the matter in issue", which was precisely what had occurred. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â W -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 9749/82; [1988] ECHR 12; [1987] ECHR 17 9 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 10496/83 9 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â SchÃ–Nenberger And Durmaz [1988] ECHR 13; 11368/85; [1988] ECHR 13 20 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Berrehab -v- The Netherlands [1988] ECHR 14; 10730/84; [1988] ECHR 14 21 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Family Family life arises ipso jure as between father and child where the child was conceived in wedlock 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Plattform Arzte Fur Das Leben -v- Austria 10126/82; [1988] ECHR 15; (1988) 13 EHRR 204; [1988] ECHR 15 21 Jun 1988 ECHR Human Rights It is the duty of member states to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Schenk -v- Switzerland 10862/84; [1988] ECHR 17; (1988) 13 EHRR 242 12 Jul 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Evidence The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man. Held: The ECHR does not address issues about the admissibility of evidence in the abstract or to deal with them as issues of principle. Article 6 simply guarantees the right to a fair trial and that admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation under national law. The Court added: "The Court therefore cannot exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence of the present kind may be admissible. It has only to ascertain whether Mr Schenk's trial as a whole was fair." The Court noted that the rights of the defence were respected: the applicant had the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the recording and of opposing its use. The defence had been able to secure an investigation of the background of the relevant witness and could have examined him in court. In addition, the Court attached weight to the fact that the recording was not the only evidence on which the applicant's conviction was based and that the domestic court had expressly said that it had relied on evidence, other than the recording, which pointed to the applicant's guilt. Rules about the admissibility of evidence are for the contracting states: "While article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law. The court therefore cannot exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence of the present kind may be admissible. It has only to ascertain whether Mr Schenk's trial as a whole was fair." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 6.2 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Weeks -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 5-Oct-1988 - (1988) 10 EHRR 293; [1988] ECHR 18; 9787/82 Â Salabiaku -v- France (1988) 13 EHRR 379; 10519/83; [1988] ECHR 19 7 Oct 1988 ECHR R Ryssdal P Human Rights, Customs and Excise, Crime A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, went through the green customs channel and was detained. The trunk contained cannabis. He was charged with two offences, a criminal offence of illegally importing narcotics and a "customs offence" of smuggling prohibited goods. At trial and on appeal he was acquitted of the former but convicted of smuggling, an offence relating to any act of smuggling or undeclared import: a person in possession of contraband goods "shall be deemed liable for the offence". The accused may exculpate himself by establishing force majeure resulting "from an event responsibility for which is not attributable to him and which it was absolutely impossible for him to avoid". The ‘almost irrebutable presumption’ . . was said to be incompatible with article 6. Held: Contracting States may apply the criminal law to an act where it is not carried out in the normal exercise of one of the rights protected under the Convention, and accordingly, to define the constituent elements in the resulting offence. Contracting States may penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence. Examples of such offences may be found in the laws of the Contracting States. However, the Applicant was not convicted for mere possession of unlawfully imported prohibited goods. Article 392(1) of the Customs Code does not appear under the heading ‘classification of customs offences’ but under that of ‘criminal liability’. Under this provision a conclusion is drawn from a simple fact, which in itself does not necessarily constitute a petty or a more serious offence, that the ‘criminal liability’ for the unlawful importation of the goods, whether they are prohibited or not, or the failure to declare them, lies with the person in whose possession they are found. It infers therefrom a legal presumption on the basis of which (the French Courts) found the Applicant guilty of smuggling prohibited goods . . This shift from the idea of accountability in criminal law to the notion of guilt shows the very relative nature of such a distinction. It raises a question with regard to Article 6.2 of the Convention. The Convention does not prohibit presumptions of fact in principle, but does require certain limits as regards criminal law. If 6.2 merely laid down a guarantee to be respected by the courts in the conduct of legal proceedings, its requirements would in practice overlap with the duty of impartiality imposed in paragraph 1. Above all, the national legislature would be free to strip the trial court of any genuine power of assessment and deprive the presumption of innocence of its substance, if the words ‘according to law’ were construed exclusively with reference of domestic law. Such a situation could not be reconciled with the object and purpose of Article 6, which, by protecting the right to a fair trial and in particular the right to be presumed innocent, is intended to enshrine the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Article 6.2 does not therefore regard presumptions of fact or of law provided for in the criminal law with indifference. It requires States to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence European Convention on Human Rights 6.2 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Woukam Moudefo -v- France [1988] ECHR 20; 10868/84; [1988] ECHR 20 11 Oct 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Attorney-General -v- Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) ('Spycatcher'); HL 13-Oct-1988 - [1990] 1 AC 109; [1988] UKHL 6; [1987] 1 WLR 776; [1988] 3 All ER 545 Â Norris -v- Ireland 10581/83; (1989) 13 EHRR 186; [1988] ECHR 22; [1985] ECHR 13 26 Oct 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination A homosexual man complained that the criminalisation of homosexual conduct in Ireland violated his article 8 right to respect for his private life, although he accepted that the risk of being prosecuted was remote. Held: The court accepted that he was a victim. Even an administrative policy of not prosecuting for the offence in question would not have made a difference. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Martins Moreira -v- Portugal 11371/85; [1988] ECHR 21 26 Oct 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nielsen -v- Denmark [1988] ECHR 23; 10929/84; (1988) 11 EHRR 175 28 Nov 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Health The applicant, a minor, complained about his committal to a child psychiatric ward of a state hospital at his mother's request. The question was whether this was a deprivation of his liberty in violation of article 5. The applicant said that it was, as the ward in which he was placed was a closed ward, he was unable to receive visitors except with the agreement of the staff, special permission was required for him to make telephone calls and for persons outside the hospital to get into contact with him and he was under almost constant surveillance. Held: It did not follow that the case fell within the ambit of article 5. The restrictions that were imposed on the applicant were not of a nature or degree similar to the cases of deprivation of liberty specified in article 5(1). He was not detained as a person of unsound mind so as to bring the case within paragraph (e). He was there at the request of his mother, as to whom there was no evidence of bad faith. "It should be observed at the outset that family life in the Contracting States incorporates a broad range of parental rights and responsibilities in regard to the care and custody of minor children. The care and upbringing of children normally and necessarily require that the parents or an only parent decide where the child must reside and also impose, or authorize others to impose, various restrictions on the child's liberty. Thus the children in a school or other educational or recreational institution must abide by certain rules, which limit their freedom of movement and their liberty in other respects. Likewise a child may have to be hospitalised for medical treatment. Family life in this sense, and especially the rights of parents to exercise parental authority over their children, having due regard to their corresponding parental responsibilities is reconsidered by the [ECHR] in particular by article 8. Indeed the exercise of parental rights constitutes a fundamental element of family life" European Convention on Human Rights 5(1) 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom 11234/84; 11209/84; (1988) 11 EHRR 117 29 Nov 1988 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Just satisfaction reserved 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; 11386/85 1 Citers Â Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom 1266/84; 11209/84; 11234/84 29 Nov 1988 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved. [ ECHR ] Â Brogan & Others -v- United Kingdom 11266/84; [1988] ECHR 24; 11209/84; 11234/84 29 Nov 1988 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom 11209/84; [1988] ECHR 24; [1989] ECHR 9 29 Nov 1988 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo -v- Spain 10590/83; [1988] ECHR 25; (1988) 11 EHRR 360; [1988] ECHR 25 6 Dec 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colak -v- Germany 9999/82; [1988] ECHR 26; [1988] ECHR 26 6 Dec 1988 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â William Mckinnon -v- United Kingdom 12812/87; [1988] ECHR 28 13 Dec 1988 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Windsor -v- United Kingdom 13081/87; [1988] ECHR 29 14 Dec 1988 ECHR Human Rights, Police The claimant complained that whilst arrested, he had been denied access to a lawyer. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Wasa Liv Omsesidigt -v- Sweden 13013/87 14 Dec 1988 ECHR CA Norgaard P Human Rights, Insurance Commission 1 Citers Â Rothenthurm Commune -v- Switzerland 13252/87 14 Dec 1988 ECHR Human Rights Local government organisations such as the applicant commune exercising public functions are "governmental organisations" as opposed to "non-governmental organisations" within the meaning of article 25 of the Convention, with the result that the commune which was complaining that proceedings for the expropriation of land for a military training area were in breach of their rights under article 6(1) could not bring an application under that article. 1 Citers Â G -v- Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 60 DR 256 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Crime A norm cannot be regarded as a law unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee, if need be with appropriate advice, the consequences which a given course of conduct may entail. However, the law may be clarified and adapted to new circumstances which can reasonably be brought under the original concept of the offence. 1 Citers Â Vearncombe -v- Germany and United Kingdom (1989) 59 DR 186 1989 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Â Baner -v- Sweden; ECHR 1989 - (1989) 60 DR 125 Â Simpson -v- United Kingdom (1989) 64 DR 188 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Education The right to be provided with an education does not guarantee access to any particular institution provided. European Convention on Human Rights A2 1 Citers Â Association of General Practitioners -v- Denmark (1989) 62 DR 226 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Health Professions The contractual entitlement of Danish GPs under a collective agreement to indexation of their remuneration was accepted by the Commission as amounting to a possession under the Convention. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers Â Barfod -v- Denmark [1989] ECHR 1; 11508/85; [1989] ECHR 1 22 Feb 1989 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciulla -v- Italy [1989] ECHR 2; 11152/84; [1989] ECHR 2 22 Feb 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, estoppel); Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-5; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bock -v- Germany 11118/84; [1989] ECHR 3; Series A no. 150, § 4; [1989] ECHR 3 29 Mar 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Chappell -v- The United Kingdom 10461/83; [1989] ECHR 4; (1990) 12 EHRR 1; [1989] ECHR 4 30 Mar 1989 ECHR Human Rights The plaintiff in civil proceedings had arranged with the police that, if (as happened) the police obtained a search warrant and the claimant obtained an Anton Piller order, they should be executed simultaneously. The court had been informed of the police interest and was naturally concerned whether the privilege against self-incrimination might be infringed, but was satisfied that the claimant's undertakings in the order would deal with that matter satisfactorily. Held: The order, as made, did not infringe the defendant's Article 8 rights. The court criticised the simultaneously execution of the warrants which might obscure the defendant's right refuse entry to the claimant's solicitor, but did not suggest that the claimant had been wrong to involve the police in the first place or that the defendant was in any way prejudiced by the fact that the police had been informed of potential criminal activity in the course of the claimant's attempts to protect his intellectual property rights. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lamy -v- Belgium [1989] ECHR 5; 10444/83; (1989) 11 EHRR 529; [1989] ECHR 5 30 Mar 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings As a general rule all evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, giving him an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question witnesses against him. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Neves E Silva -v- Portugal [1989] ECHR 6; 11213/84; [1989] ECHR 6 27 Apr 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hewitt and Harman -v- United Kingdom 12175/86 9 May 1989 ECHR Frowein J P Human Rights, Contempt of Court The claimants, officers of the National Council for Civil Liberties, complained that their telephone calls had beem intercepted by the Secret Services. [ Bailii ] Â Hauschildt -v- Denmark [1989] ECHR 7; 10486/83; (1989) 12 EHRR 266; [1989] ECHR 7 24 May 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings. "in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive. What is decisive is whether the test can be held objectively justified." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oliveira Neves -v- Portugal [1989] ECHR 8; 11612/85; [1989] ECHR 8 25 May 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 11234/84; 11209/84 30 May 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; 11386/85 Â Brogan & Ors -v- United Kingdom (Article 50) - 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; [1989] ECHR 9 30 May 1989 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 11209/84;11234/84;11266/84; 30 May 1989 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) - Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient. [ ECHR ] Â Langborger -v- Sweden 11179/84; (1990) 12 EHRR 416; [1989] ECHR 11; [1989] ECHR 11 22 Jun 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The involvement of two lay assessors, who were appointed by the Landlord's Association and by the Tenant's Association violated Article 6 as both those two bodies had interests in the outcome of the applicant's case, which were contrary to the interests of the applicant. European Convention on Human Rights 6-1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Eriksson -v- Sweden 11373/85; [1989] ECHR 10; [1989] ECHR 10 22 Jun 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Union Alimentaria Sanders S A -v- Spain 11681/85; [1989] ECHR 16; [1989] ECHR 16 7 Jul 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Soering -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 7-Jul-1989 - 14038/88; (1989) 11 EHRR 439; [1989] ECHR 14 Â Bricmont -v- Belgium [1989] ECHR 12; 10857/84; [1989] ECHR 12 7 Jul 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gaskin -v- The United Kingdom 10454/83; [1990] 1 FLR 167; [1989] ECHR 13; (1989) 12 EHRR 36 7 Jul 1989 ECHR R Ryssdal, P Human Rights, Family, Information The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied. Held: The refusal to allow him access to his records involved a breach of his rights under Article 8, because there was no independent mechanism for determining whether or not access should be permitted where the consent of third party contributors could not be obtained. The Court emphasised the need for specific justification for preventing individuals from having access to information which forms part of their private and family life. Relationships between children and foster parents or carers fall within the definition of "family" within the meaning of Article 8. However, the court rejected a submission that Article 10 provided the applicant with a right of access to social services care records concerning periods of his childhood spent in foster care, saying: "The Court holds, as it did in Leander v. Sweden, that 'the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him.' Also in the circumstances of this case, Article 10 does not embody an obligation on the State concerned to impart the information in question to the individual. There has thus been no interference with Mr Gaskin's right to receive information as protected by Article 10." European Convention on Human Rights 8 10 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag -v- Sweden 10873/84; [1991] 13 EHRR 309; [1989] ECHR 15; [1989] ECHR 15 7 Jul 1989 ECHR Human Rights An alcohol licence for a restaurant was withdrawn with immediate effect because of financial irregularities, with the result that the restaurant business collapsed. Held: "The government argued that a licence to sell alcoholic beverages could not be considered to be a 'possession' within the meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol . . Like the Commission, however, the Court takes the view that the economic interests connected with the running of [the restaurant] were 'possessions' for the purposes of Article 1 of the Protocol. Indeed, the Court has already found that the maintenance of the licence was one of the principal conditions for the carrying on of the applicant company's business, and that its withdrawal had adverse effects on the goodwill and value of the restaurant. Such withdrawal thus constitutes, in the circumstances of the case, an interference with [the applicant's] right to the 'peaceful enjoyment of [its] possessions'." Licences granted to a restaurant were held to be "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1. The interference with property rights was proportionate even though no compensation was payable for the loss caused and the effect of the legislation was regarded as severe. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Junior Reid, Roy Dennis and Oliver Whylie -v- The Queen; Errol Reece, Robert Taylor and Delroy Quelch -v- the Queen [1989] UKPC 1; [1990] 1 AC 363 27 Jul 1989 PC Lord Diplock Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth PC (Jamaica) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â Maximilian Rommelfanger -v- Federal Republic of Germany 12242/86; (1989) 62 D & R 151; [1989] ECHR 27 6 Sep 1989 ECHR Norgaard P Human Rights, Health Professions, Discrimination (Admissibility) [ Bailii ] Â Whitman -v- United Kingdom 13477/87 4 Oct 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Education Commission decision - a reasonable denial of the right to education does not violate the Convention. 1 Citers Â Luke Small -v- The United Kingdom 7330/06; [2008] ECHR 134; [2009] ECHR 1001 12 Oct 1989 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H -v- France 10073/82; [1989] ECHR 17; (1989) 12 EHRR 74; [1989] ECHR 17 24 Oct 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bezicheri -v- Italy 11400/85; (1990) 12 EHRR 210; [1989] ECHR 19 25 Oct 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons, Damages Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Allan Jacobsson -v- Sweden 10842/84; [1989] 12 EHRR 56; [1989] ECHR 18 25 Oct 1989 ECHR Human Rights "According to the Court's case law, this provision comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions; and the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three rules are not distinct in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule." European Convention on Human Rights P1 A1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Markt Intern Verlag Gmbh And Klaus Beermann -v- Germany 10572/83; [1989] ECHR 21; (1989) 12 EHRR 161; [1989] ECHR 21 20 Nov 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kostovski -v- The Netherlands [1990] ECHR 8; [1989] ECHR 20; 11454/85; (1989) 12 EHRR 434; [1989] ECHR 20 20 Nov 1989 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled him to demonstrate the witnesses unreliability. Held: There had been a violation of article 6(3)(d) where the court treated the statements of anonymous witnesses, who had been examined in the absence of the accused and his representatives, as sufficient proof of guilt of armed robbery. The Court explained its approach: "In principle, all the evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. This does not mean, however, that in order to be used as evidence statements of witnesses should always be made at a public hearing in court: to use as evidence such statements obtained at the pre-trial stage is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs (3)(d) and (1) of Article 6, provided the rights of the defence have been respected. As a rule, these rights require that an accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either at the time the witness was making his statement or at some later stage of the proceedings." and "The right to a fair administration of justice holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that it cannot be sacrificed to expediency. The Convention does not preclude reliance at the investigation stage of criminal proceedings on sources such anonymous informants. However, the subsequent use of anonymous statements as sufficient evidence to found a conviction as in the present case is a different matter. It involved limitations on the right of the defence which were irreconcilable with the guarantees contained in Article 6." European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Chichlian And Ekindjian -v- France 10959/84; [1989] ECHR 22; [1989] ECHR 22 29 Nov 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Simpson -v- United Kingdom 14688/89; [1989] ECHR 26 4 Dec 1989 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Mellacher And Others -v- Austria; ECHR 19-Dec-1989 - 10522/83; [1993] ECR I-637; 11011/84; (1989) 12 EHRR 391; [1989] ECHR 25; 11070/84 Â Â Kamasinski -v- Austria; ECHR 19-Dec-1989 - [1989] ECHR 24; 9783/82 Â Brozicek -v- Italy [1989] ECHR 23; 10964/84; [1989] ECHR 23 19 Dec 1989 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-a; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Human Rights - From: 1985 To: 1989