

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: 1996 To: 1996 This page lists 135 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015. Â Sulak -v- Turkey (1996) 84-A DR 98 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Education (Commission) A reasonable denial of the right to education does not violate the Convention. 1 Citers Â Poku -v- United Kingdom [1996] 22 EHRR CD 94 1996 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Coeme and others -v- Belgium 32492/96; [2000] ECHR 249 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The mischief that Article 7 is designed to prevent is the imposition by the State of (i) criminal liability for an act which did not attract such liability at the time it was committed or (ii) a penalty greater than the maximum permitted when the offence was committed. "The court must verify that at the time when the accused prisoner performed the act which led to him being prosecuted and convicted there was in force a legal provision which made that act punishable, and that the punishment imposed did not exceed the limits fixed by that provision." European Convention on Human Rights 7.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hautanemi -v- Sweden (1996) 22 EHRR CD 155 1996 ECHR Ecclesiastical, Human Rights The applicants were members of a parish of the Church of Sweden who complained of a violation of article 9 of the Convention because the Assembly of the Church of Sweden had prohibited the use of the liturgy of the Finnish Evangelical-Lutheran Church in their parish. Held: At the relevant time the Church of Sweden and its member parishes were to be regarded as corporations of public law. Since these religious bodies cannot be considered to have been exercising governmental powers, the Church of Sweden and notably the applicant parish can nevertheless be regarded as 'non-governmental organisations' within the meaning of article 25(1). Having held that, as members of the parish, the applicants could be regarded as victims in terms of article 25(1), the Commission added, "The Commission has just found that, for the purposes of article 25 of the Convention, the Church of Sweden and its member parishes are to be regarded as 'non-governmental organisations'. It follows that the respondent state cannot be held responsible for the alleged violation of the applicants' freedom of religion resulting from the decision of the Church Assembly . . There has thus been no State interference with that freedom." 1 Citers Â Mabey -v- United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR CD 123 1996 ECHR Human Rights A claimant must show a sufficient and continuing link with a place in order to establish that it is his home for purposes of article 8. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â M A R -v- United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR CD 120 1996 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) The applicants complained under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, of their expulsion from the United Kingdom. Held: The complaints were admissible, and called for examination on the merits. (Later settled) 1 Citers Â Roosli -v- Germany (1996) 85 DR 149 1996 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Bullock -v- United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHRR CD 85 1996 ECHR Human Rights The keeping of a pet does not fall within the sphere of the owner's private or family life for the purposes of Article 8. 1 Citers Â Gudmundsson -v- Iceland 23285/94; (1996) 21 EHRR CD 89 1996 ECHR Human Rights A revocation of a licence is not a deprivation of property, but rather a control of its use within the second paragraph of article 1 under a proportionate and Convention compliant scheme 1 Citers Â Kontinnen -v- Finland (1996) 87 DR 68 1996 Human Rights (Commission) The applicant, Tuomo Kottinnen worked on the Finnish Railways. After five years he became a Seventh Day Adventist and declared that he could not work after sunset on Fridays. After several incidents when he left with the early setting of the Finnish winter sun, his employers dismissed him. Held: There had been no infringement of his rights under article 9: "having found his working hours to conflict with his religious convictions, the applicant was free to relinquish his post." European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Citers Â Sanders -v- France 31401/96; (1996) 87 B-DR 160; [1996] ECHR 99 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Family A male Turkish national and a female French national, living together in Istanbul, complained of delays in obtaining a certificate of capacity to marry under French law. The issue as to the obtaining of a certificate related to (alleged) concerns about the prospective wife's mental capacity to marry, under section 175 of the French Civil Code. Held: "The Commission notes that, in the present case, the issue concerns substantive rules, the purpose of which is, inter alia, to preclude marriages of convenience between French citizens and aliens. It does not find this limitation, in itself, to be contrary to Article 12 of the Convention." European Convention on Human Rights 12 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Nordstrom-Janzon -v- The Netherlands Unreported 1996 1996 ECHR Human Rights The parties had settled an earlier dispute under a joint venture agreement on terms which included a provision that disputes between them should not be settled by the ordinary courts but by a special arbitration procedure. The arbitrators rejected all the claims advanced by the applicants. The applicants challenged the award in the Dutch courts on the ground that one of the arbitrators was not independent and impartial. The challenge failed in all the Dutch courts, including the Supreme Court (the Hoge Raad). They argued that the award should be quashed as being contrary to public order interests. Held: Referring to Deweer, constraint was not alleged. Account must be taken, not only of the nature of the arbitration agreement and of the private arbitration proceedings, but also of the legislative framework providing for such proceedings, in order to determine whether the national courts retained a measure of control and whether that control was exercised on the facts: "The Commission observes that the grounds on which arbitral awards may be challenged before national courts differs among the Contracting States and considers that it cannot be required under the Convention that national courts must ensure that arbitral proceedings have been in conformity with Article 6 of the Convention. In some respects – in particular as regards publicity – it is clear that arbitral proceedings are often not even intended to be in conformity with Article 6, and the arbitration agreement entails a renunciation of the full application of that Article. The Commission therefore considers that that an arbitral award does not necessarily have to be quashed because the parties have not enjoyed all the guarantees of Article 6, but each Contracting State may decide itself on which grounds an arbitral award should be quashed." TThe mere appearance of a lack of independence or impartiality on the part of an arbitrator did not lead to the quashing of an award under Dutch law, which required either that there was in fact a lack of independence or impartiality or that the doubts in that regard were so grave that the disadvantaged party could not be required to accept the award. "[The Commission] considers that Article 6 para 1 of the Convention does not require the Dutch courts to apply a different criterion in determining whether or not to quash an arbitral award. It finds it reasonable that in this respect Dutch law requires strong reasons for quashing an already rendered award, since the quashing will often mean that a long and costly arbitral procedure will become useless and that considerable work and expense must be invested in new proceedings. The Commission furthermore notes that in the proceedings before the national courts themselves the applicants were provided with ample opportunity to state their case and to challenge the arguments of the adverse party." The Commission stressed the pivotal role of the national courts in considering whether there has been a breach of article 6 in a particular case relating to arbitration. The more important the article 6 right the greater the scrutiny to be expected. It is easier to waive the requirement that the arbitration proceedings be in public than the requirement that the arbitrators be impartial. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Logan -v- United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 81; (1996) 22 EHRR CD178; 24875/94 1996 ECHR Liddy P Human Rights, Child Support [ Bailii ] Â Â McDaid -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1996 - (1996) 85-A DR 134 Â Botta -v- Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241; 21439/93 15 Jan 1996 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bates -v- United Kingdom 26280/95; Unreported, 16 January 1996 16 Jan 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Animals, Crime The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act. Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5 1 Citers Â Ergul -v- Turkey 23991/94; [1996] ECHR 84 17 Jan 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bahri Sulak -v- Turkey 24515/94; [1996] ECHR 105 17 Jan 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â British Broadcasting Corporation -v- United Kingdom 25798/94; [1996] ECHR 82 18 Jan 1996 ECHR Rozakis P Human Rights (Commission - Admissibility) The Corporation complained that it had been served with a witness summons obliging it to to hand over materials in its possession, both broadcast and not-broadacst being coverage of a riot. European Convention on Human Rights 6 10 - Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 2 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Fouquet -v- France [1996] ECHR 1; 20398/92; [1996] ECHR 1 31 Jan 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â A And Others -v- Denmark [1996] ECHR 2; 20826/92; [1996] ECHR 2 8 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 (A, Eg, C, D, E, F and G); No violation of Art. 6-1 (Feldskov and Lykkeskov Jacobsen); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Murray -v- The United Kingdom Times, 09 February 1996; 18731/91; [1996] ECHR 3; (1996) 23 EHRR 313; [1996] 22 EHRR 29 8 Feb 1996 ECHR R Ryssdal, President Human Rights, Criminal Evidence The applicant had been denied legal advice for 48 hours after he had been taken into custody. Held: There had been a violation of article 6(1) read with article 6(3)(c). However, it was not a breach of human rights to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. As to the US judgment in Miranda, Walsh J, dissenting in part, pointed out that the US Supreme Court had affirmed that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment: "guarantees to the individual the 'right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own free will' whether during custodial interrogation or in court." European Convention on Human Rights 691) 693)(c) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Botten -v- Norway [2001] 32 EHRR 3; 16206/90; [1996] ECHR 4; [1996] ECHR 4 19 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1 (fair hearing); Costs and expenses - claim withdrawn The lower court had had taken evidence in public from the applicant and other witnesses. The appellate court had held a public oral hearing at which the applicant was represented but at which he gave no evidence. Held: That did not infringe Article 6. "….it is necessary to examine whether in the light of the Supreme Court's role and the nature of the issues to be decided by that court there has been a violation in the particular circumstances of the case. In carrying out this examination, the Court will confine itself to consider whether the proceedings in the present case were fair…." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gul -v- Switzerland 23218/94; (1996) 22 EHRR 93; [1996] ECHR 5 19 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights A Turkish father, who had been permitted on humanitarian grounds to reside with his wife in Switzerland, failed to establish that, by refusing to allow their seven-year-old son to join them in Switzerland, the state had interfered with respect for his family life. Held: The father and his wife had no permanent right of abode in Switzerland. The Court recognised the possibility that a State might be under an obligation to admit relatives of settled immigrants in order to develop family life. The right to care for 'your own children' is 'a fundamental element of an elementary right.' 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vermeulen -v- Belgium [1996] ECHR 7; 19075/91 20 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of art. 6-1 (adversarial trial); Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lobo Machado -v- Portugal [1996] ECHR 6; 15764/89; (1996) 23 EHRR 79 20 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights One of the characteristics of a fair trial under article 6 is that the proceedings should be "adversarial". The applicant's right, in an adversarial hearing, to see and reply to material before the court: "means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed, even by an independent member of the national legal service, with a view to influencing the Court's decision." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hussain -v- The United Kingdom Times, 26 February 1996; 21928/93; (1996) 22 EHRR 1; [1996] ECHR 8 21 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his punitive period, to bring the case of his continued detention before a court. The court said that he was entitled under article 5(4) to have the issue of his dangerousness to society, a characteristic susceptible to change with the passage of time, decided by a court at reasonable intervals. Article 5 (4) required an oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses. European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Singh -v- The United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 9; 23389/94; [1996] ECHR 9 21 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bulut -v- Austria 17358/90; [1996] ECHR 10; (1996) 24 EHRR 84; [1996] ECHR 10 22 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights The Procurator General had submitted to the Supreme Court comments on a plea of nullity made by a defendant without bringing them to the attention of the accused. Held: The principle of equality of arms had not been respected in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The principle of the equality of arms does not depend on quantifiable unfairness flowing from a procedural inequality. It is a matter for the defence to assess whether a submission deserves a reaction. It is therefore unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defence. There had been no violation of article 6(1) where there had been no oral hearing of the applicant's appeal by the Supreme Court which it rejected summarily on the ground that the appeal was manifestly without merit. The Court was not satisfied that the appeal had raised questions of fact bearing on the assessment of the applicant's guilt or innocence that would have necessitated a hearing. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Putz -v- Austria [1996] ECHR 11; 18892/91; [1996] ECHR 11 22 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6; No violation of Art. 13 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Mulcahy -v- Ministry of Defence; CA 27-Feb-1996 - Independent, 29 February 1996; Times, 27 February 1996; [1996] QB 732; [1996] 2 All ER 758; [1996] EWCA Civ 1323; [1996] 2 WLR 474 Â Schaller Volpi -v- Switzerland 25147/94; [1996] ECHR 85 28 Feb 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Murray -v- United Kingdom Times, 01 March 1996 1 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights A delay of 24 hours in allowing access to a solicitor, for a terrorist suspect arrestee, was a breach of his human rights. European Convention on Human Rights Â Brezny -v- Slovak Republic 23131/93; [1996] ECHR 88 4 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Malige -v- France 26135/95; [1996] ECHR 86 5 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Mitap And Muftuoglu -v- Turkey 15530/89;15531/89; [1996] ECHR 13 25 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Preliminary objection partially allowed (ratione temporis); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mitap And MÃœFtÃœOglu -v- Turkey 15530/89 ; 15531/89 25 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection partially allowed (ratione temporis); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Mitap And MÃœFtÃœOglu -v- Turkey 15530/89; [1996] ECHR 13 25 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Doorson -v- The Netherlands 20524/92; (1996) 22 EHRR 330; [1996] ECHR 14 26 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Evidence Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, they were ultimately questioned at an appeal stage, in the presence of counsel, but not the defendant, and without the identity of the witnesses being revealed to counsel. Held: Admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter of domestic law. The Convention does not guarantee a right to face to face confrontation. Even in the case of anonymous witnesses, the Court accepted that exceptions may be made, provided that sufficient steps are taken to counter-balance the handicaps under which the defence laboured and a conviction is not based solely or decisively on anonymous statements. "While it would clearly have been preferable for the applicant to attend the questioning of the witnesses, the court considers on balance that the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was entitled to consider that the interests of the applicant were in this respect outweighed by the need to ensure the safety of the witnesses." and "principles of fair trial also require that in appropriate cases the interests of the defence are balanced against those of witnesses or victims called upon to testify" European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Leutscher -v- The Netherlands 17314/90; [1996] ECHR 15; (1996) 24 EHRR 181; (1997) 24 EHRR 180 26 Mar 1996 ECHR Human Rights Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible); No violation of Art. 6-2 - The Commission distinguished cases in which there has been no acquittal on the merits of the accusation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Goodwin -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 27-Mar-1996 - Times, 28 March 1996; 17488/90; (1996) 22 EHRR 123; [1996] ECHR 16 Â H Ma -v- Spain 25399/94; [1996] ECHR 91 9 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bocos Rodriguez -v- Spain 28236/95; [1996] ECHR 93 12 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Busch -v- Luxembourg 24637/94; [1996] ECHR 89 12 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Opinion No 2/94; ECJ 16-Apr-1996 - Times, 16 April 1996 Â Gerlinde Muhle And Gerhard Muhle -v- Germany 21773/05; [1996] ECHR 425 22 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Phocas -v- France 17869/91; [1996] ECHR 17; [1996] ECHR 17 23 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of P1-1; Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); No violation of Art. 6-1 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Remli -v- France 16839/90; (1996) 22 EHRR 253; [1996] ECHR 18; [1996] ECHR 18 23 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) (Art. 14+6); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) (Art. 6); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time) (Art. 6); Violation of Art. 6; Lack of jurisdiction (injunction to State); Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings A juror in a trial had made racist remarks. D objected, but the court devclined to enquire further. Held: "It is not for the Court to rule on . . . whether the racist remark attributed to the juror in question was actually made. It notes merely that Mrs M's statement - which contained a serious allegation in the context of the case - was filed with the Assize Court by the applicant's lawyers, who asked the Court to take formal note of it. The Court dismissed their application without even examining the evidence submitted to it, on the purely formal ground that it was 'not able to take formal note of events alleged to have occurred out of its presence'. Nor did it order that evidence should be taken to verify what had been reported - and, if it was established, take formal note of it as requested by the defence - although it could have done so. Consequently, the applicant was unable either to have the juror in question replaced by one of the additional jurors or to rely on the fact in issue in support of his appeal on points of law. Nor could he challenge the juror, since the jury had been finally empanelled and no appeal lay against the Assize Court's judgment other than on points of law. Like the Commission, the Court considers that article 6(1) of the Convention imposes an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it is 'an impartial tribunal' within the meaning of that provision where, as in the instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit. In the instant case, however, the Rhône Assize Court did not make any such check, thereby depriving Mr Remli of the possibility of remedying, if it proved necessary, a situation contrary to the requirements of the Convention. This finding, regard being had to the confidence which the courts must inspire in those subject to their jurisdiction, suffices for the Court to hold that there has been a breach of article 6(1)." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boughanemi -v- France 22070/93; (1996) 22 EHRR 228; [1996] ECHR 19 24 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights A Tunisian national lived in France. In his youth. He was deported after being convicted of a number of serious criminal offences. He returned illegally and formed a relationship with a French national whose child he acknowledged to be his. He complained that his deportation was in breach of Article 8. The Commission admitted the complaint saying that, despite the serious nature of the convictions that had led to the deportation, a fair balance had not been struck between the aims pursued and the right to respect for private and family life. Held: "The Court acknowledges that it is for the Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, to control the entry and residence of aliens and notably to order the expulsion of aliens convicted of criminal offences. However, their decisions in this field must, in so far as they may interfere with a right protected under Article 8(1), be necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether the interference was "necessary", the Court makes allowance for the margin of appreciation that is left to the Contracting States in this field. Its task consists of ascertaining whether the deportation in issue struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other." There was no violation of Article 8 in this case.. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gustafsson -v- Sweden 15573/89; [1996] ECHR 20; [1998] ECHR 67; [1996] 22 EHRR 409 25 Apr 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 13; No violation of P1-1 The right to freedom of association under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights includes the right not to join or to withdraw from an association. European Convention on Human Rights 11 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tsovolas -v- Greece 20339/92; [1996] ECHR 87 14 May 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Kinnunen -v- Finland 24950/94; [1996] ECHR 104 15 May 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Police (Commission) In a criminal case of fraud, the claimant said the retention of his photographs and fingerprints by the police after his acquittal, infringed his right to private life. The Commission rejected the complaint, but noted that the information had been properly taken on his arrest, did not contain any surveillance or similar information or opinions which he might wish to refute, and therefore "was not of such a character that it could have adversely affected the applicant any more significantly than the publicly known fact that he had been charged with, but acquitted of, certain charges." European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Robson -v- United Kingdom 25648/94; [1996] ECHR 74 15 May 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Lupulet -v- Romania 25497/94; [1996] ECHR 92 17 May 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Frerot -v- France 24667/94; [1996] ECHR 90 20 May 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ausiello -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 21; 20331/92; [1996] ECHR 21 21 May 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â T -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 22-May-1996 - Times, 23 May 1996; [1996] AC 742; [1996] Imm AR 443; [1996] 2 WLR 766; [1996] 2 All ER 865; [1996] UKHL 8 Â Thomann -v- Switzerland 17602/91; [1996] ECHR 24 10 Jun 1996 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pullar -v- The United Kingdom Times, 24 June 1996; [1996] 22 ECHR 391; 22399/93; [1996] ECHR 23; [1996] ECHR 23 10 Jun 1996 ECHR Criminal Practice, Human Rights The applicant P was an elected councillor. He faced a charge of corruption, being said to have have offered, for reward, to support a planning application made by M, a partner in a firm of architects, and C, a partner in a firm of quantity surveyors. He was tried before a sheriff and a jury in July 1992. M and C were the leading prosecution witnesses. Among the jurors summoned to the trial was F, a junior employee of M's firm who had received notice of dismissal on grounds of redundancy shortly before the trial began. F informed the clerk of the court of his employment in M's firm, but the clerk, having ascertained that F did not know P and was ignorant of the facts, took no action and did not inform the sheriff or the procurator fiscal or defending lawyers. M, on later seeing F sitting as a juror, told the clerk of his connection with F, but the clerk again took no action and informed no one. P was convicted. His lawyers learned of the connection between F and M only after the trial, and appealed to the High Court of Justiciary. That court had held that the clerk ought to have informed the sheriff, and if he had F would probably have been excused, but that a mere suspicion of bias was insufficient to justify quashing a verdict, and it was necessary to prove that a miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. So the appeal failed. The Commission unanimously found a breach of article 6(1) of the Convention: in the circumstances of the case the impartiality of the jury which convicted P was capable of appearing open to doubt and P's fears in this regard could be considered as objectively justified. Held: By a bare majority of 5-4, there had been no violation. Knowledge of a person did not necessarily lead to prejudice in his favour, and that it had to be decided whether the familiarity in question was of such a nature and degree as to indicate a lack of impartiality on the part of the tribunal. F had not worked on the project giving rise to the prosecution, and it was not clear that an objective observer would conclude that F, having just received notice of redundancy, would be more inclined to believe M rather than the witnesses for the defence. The presence of the complainant's employee on the jury did not stop the jury being impartial and the trial fair. The court recognised the several features of jury trial in Britain which help to guarantee the objective impartiality of the jury. Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) [1996] EWCA Civ 510; (1997) 1 All ER 58; [1996] 2 FLR 765 20 Jun 1996 CA Butler-Sloss LJ Children, Human Rights The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: "Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public from all or part of the trial "in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require. The right of freedom of expression contained in Article 10(1) is subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties which may be imposed by the member state under Article 10(2). It would seem to me that the present procedures in family proceedings are in accordance with the spirit of the Convention." European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Illich Sanchez Ramirez -v- France 86 DR 155 24 Jun 1996 ECHR Human Rights The applicant was arrested in Khartoum by Sudanese security forces and handed over to French police officers who escorted him to France in a French military aircraft. The ECommHR was willing to accept that he was effectively under the authority, and therefore the jurisdiction, of France on SAA principles, notwithstanding that this authority was being exercised abroad. 1 Citers Â Pierre Marais -v- France 31159/96; [1996] ECHR 103 24 Jun 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Amuur -v- France 19776/92; (1996) 22 EHRR 533; [1996] ECHR 25; [1996] ECHR 25 25 Jun 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings "In order to determine whether someone has been 'deprived of his liberty' within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his 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 difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. Holding aliens in the international zone does indeed involve a restriction upon liberty, but one which is not in every respect comparable to that which obtains in centres for the detention of aliens pending deportation. Such confinement, accompanied by suitable safeguards for the persons concerned, is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. States' legitimate concern to foil the increasingly frequent attempts to get round immigration restrictions must not deprive asylum seekers of the protection afforded by these Conventions. Such holding should not be prolonged excessively, otherwise there would be a risk of it turning a mere restriction on liberty—inevitable with a view to organising the practical details of the alien's repatriation or, where he has requested asylum, while his application for leave to enter the territory for that purpose is considered—into a deprivation of liberty. In that connection account should be taken of the fact that the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country. Although by the force of circumstances the decision to order holding must necessarily be taken by the administrative or police authorities, its prolongation requires speedy review by the courts, the traditional guardians of personal liberties. Above all, such confinement must not deprive the asylum seeker of the right to gain effective access to the procedure for determining refugee status". 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Khan (Sultan); HL 2-Jul-1996 - Gazette, 24 July 1996; Times, 05 July 1996; [1997] AC 558; [1996] UKHL 14; [1996] 3 All ER 289; [1996] 3 WLR 162; (1996) 2 CHRLD 125; [1996] 2 Cr App R 440 Â Â Regina -v- Bernard; CACD 2-Jul-1996 - Times, 02 July 1996; [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 135 Â Pardo -v- France (Revision) 13416/87 10 Jul 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Request for revision admissible Â Â Hibbs and Birmingham -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Jul-1996 - 11991/96 Â Zubani -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 33; [1999] ECHR 34; 14025/88; [1999] ECHR 34; [1996] ECHR 33 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Allenet De Ribemont -v- France (Interpretation) 15175/89; [1995] ECHR 5; [1996] ECHR 27; [2007] ECHR 315; [1996] ECHR 27; [2007] ECHR 112 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Lack of jurisdiction (interpretation in abstract); Interpretation [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C -v- Belgium 21794/93; [1996] ECHR 28; [1996] ECHR 28 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 14+8 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferrantelli and Santangelo -v- Italy 19874/92; [1996] 23 EHRR 288; [1996] ECHR 29 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Evidence The matter of admissibility of evidence is primarily one for the national courts: "It [the Court] recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hamer -v- France 19953/92; [1996] ECHR 30 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yagiz -v- Turkey [1996] ECHR 32; 19092/91; [1996] ECHR 32 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (ratione temporis); Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Johansen -v- Norway 17383/90; (1997) 23 EHRR 33; [1996] ECHR 31 7 Aug 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Children, Adoption The court had to consider a permanent placement of a child with a view to adoption in oposition to the natural parents' wishes. Held: Particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child, which may override those of the parent: 'These measures were particularly far-reaching in that they totally deprived the applicant of her family life with the child and were inconsistent with the aim of reuniting them. Such measures should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and could only be justified if they were motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests.' European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bernard Veriter -v- France 25308/94; [1996] ECHR 101 2 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Logan -v- United Kingdom 24875/94 6 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Children The complaint was that the mandatory child support payments meant that the father could not visit his children as often as he was entitled under the court's order to do. The complaint of a direct breach of article 8 failed because he could not show that the impact upon his family life was sufficiently grave, but in another case it might have been. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers Â Gaygusuz -v- Austria 17371/90; (1996) 23 EHRR 364; [1996] ECHR 36 16 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Benefits The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was available under the material Austrian legislation, but one of the conditions was that the applicant should "possess Austrian nationality", and so the applicant was refused. Held: Article 14 taken with Article 1P applied to the case and had been violated. "36. According to the court's established case law, Article 14 of the Convention complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to 'the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms' safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within one or more of them. 37. The applicant and the Turkish Government argued that Article 14 of the Convention was applicable in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They referred to the reasoning of the Commission, which found that the award of emergency assistance was linked to the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. 38. The Austrian Government, however, submitted that emergency assistance did not come within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Entitlement thereto did not result automatically from the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. It was an emergency payment granted by the State to people in need. Consequently, Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable either. 39. The Court notes that at the material time emergency assistance was granted to persons who had exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit and satisfied the other statutory conditions laid down in… the… Act. Entitlement to this social benefit is therefore linked to the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, which is a precondition for the payment of unemployment benefit. It follows that there is no entitlement to emergency assistance where such contributions have not been made. 40. In the instant case it has not been argued that the applicant did not satisfy that condition; the refusal to grant him emergency assistance was based exclusively on the finding that he did not have Austrian nationality and did not fall into any of the categories exempted from that condition. 41. The Court considers that the right to emergency assistance – in so far as provided for in the applicable legislation – is a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. That provision is therefore applicable without it being necessary to rely solely on the link between entitlement to emergency assistance and the obligation to pay 'taxes or other contributions'. Accordingly, as the applicant was denied emergency assistance on a ground of distinction covered by Article 14, namely his nationality, that provision is also applicable." European Convention on Human Rights 14 1P 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Akdivar and Others -v- Turkey [1996] ECHR 35; 21893/93 16 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 25-1; Violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 18; Not necessary to examine Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 5; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - reserved; Non-pecuniary damage - reserved; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings In assessing whether domestic remedies have been exhausted, account should be taken not only of the formal remedies available in the legal system concerned but also of the particular circumstances of the case in question. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Matos E Silva, Lda , And Others -v- Portugal 15777/89; [1996] ECHR 37; [1996] ECHR 37; [2011] ECHR 1694 16 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione materiae); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of Art. 13 (access); No violation of Art. 6-1 (access); Violation of Art. 6-1 (length); Violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â SÃœSsmann -v- Germany [1996] ECHR 38; 20024/92; [1996] ECHR 38 16 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1 (length) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Buckley -v- The United Kingdom Times, 09 October 1996; 20348/92; 23/1995/529/615; [1996] ECHR 39; (1996) 23 EHRR 101; [1996] ECHR 39 25 Sep 1996 ECHR Planning, Human Rights The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities. The Commission found that the interests of the applicant outweighed the general interest. The Court, also by a majority, took the opposite view, concluding that the responsible planning authorities had arrived at their decision after weighing in the balance the various competing interests at issue; that it was not for the Court to sit in appeal on the merits of that decision; that the reasons relied on by the planning authorities were relevant and sufficient; and that the means employed to achieve the legitimate aims pursued could not be regarded as disproportionate. A denial of permission for a gypsy to live on his own land was not a breach of his human rights. "'Home' is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a 'home' which attracts the protection of Article 8(1) will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links. The factor of 'unlawfulness' is relevant rather to considerations under paragraph 2 of that provision of 'in accordance with law' and to the balancing exercise undertaken between the interests of the community and those of the individual in assessing the necessity of any interference". Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 14+8 European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Miailhe -v- France (No 2) [1996] ECHR 42; 18978/91; (1996) 23 EHRR 491; [1996] ECHR 42 26 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Litigation Practice Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of Art. 6-1. Questions as to the admissibility of evidence are for the national court. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Manoussakis And Others -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 41; 18748/91; [1996] ECHR 41 26 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 9; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Pede -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 40; 15797/89; [1996] ECHR 40 26 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zappia -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 43; 24295/94; [1996] ECHR 43 26 Sep 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Danim -v- Ltaly 22998/93; [1996] ECHR 95 14 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Dwight Lamott Henfield -v- The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Appeal No 26 of 1996) and Ricardo Farrington -v- The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas Times, 18 October 1996; [1996] UKPC 36; [1997] AC 413; Appeal No 26 of 1996 and Appeal No 37 of 1996; [1996] UKPC 4 14 Oct 1996 PC Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth (The Bahamas) A delay in carrying out an execution for 3.5 years, where the target delay had been set at 2 years, was inhuman treatment, and the execution should be set aside. The essential question in Pratt was whether the execution of a man following long delay after his sentence to death can amount to inhuman punishment contrary to Article 17(1). 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Hols -v- Netherlands Unreported, 19 October 1996; 25206/94 19 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The court arranged a live link transmission where both counsel were in the room with the witness while the judge and accused remained in the courtroom. Held: The application was declared inadmissible. The Convention does not guarantee the accused a right to be in the same room as the witness giving evidence. What matters is that the defence should have a proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against the accused. These requirements can be satisfied even where, for good reason, the accused is not physically present at the questioning. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers Â Areski Ait MOUHOUB v FRANCE - 22924/93; [1996] ECHR 94 21 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pietro Venezia -v- Italy 29966/9; [1996] ECHR 97 21 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â MP ML -v- Spain 27266/95; [1996] ECHR 96 21 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Stubbings and Others -v- The United Kingdom Times, 24 October 1996; (1996) 23 EHRR 213; [1996] ECHR 44; 22083/93; 22095/93 22 Oct 1996 ECHR Limitation, Human Rights There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: "Limitation periods in personal injury cases are a common feature of the domestic legal systems of the Contracting States. They serve several important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential defendants from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence which might have become unreliable and incomplete because of the passage of time." The Court considered the positive duty falling on states to protect against child abuse: "Sexual abuse is unquestionably an abhorrent type of wrongdoing, with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals are entitled to state protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such grave types of interference with essential aspects of their private lives." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ankerl -v- Switzerland 17748/91; [1996] ECHR 45; [1996] ECHR 45 23 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6-1 "the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were 'fair' within the meaning of Article 6.1". European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Levages Prestations Services -v- France [1996] ECHR 46; 21920/93; [1996] ECHR 46 23 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guillot -v- France [1996] ECHR 48; 22500/93; [1996] ECHR 48 24 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Salvador Torres -v- Spain [1996] ECHR 47; 21525/93; [1996] ECHR 47 24 Oct 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-3-a [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales ex parte Taher Nawaz; Admn 25-Oct-1996 - Times, 07 November 1996; [1996] EWHC Admin 149 Â Â Wilson -v- Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary; CA 5-Nov-1996 - (2000) 1 Po LR 367; [1996] EWCA Civ 883 Â Tsomtsos And Others -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 59; [1998] ECHR 24; 20680/92; [1998] ECHR 24; [1996] ECHR 59 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - reserved; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cantoni -v- France [1996] ECHR 52; 17862/91; [1996] ECHR 52 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Katikaridis And Others -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 56; [1998] ECHR 22; 19385/92; [1998] ECHR 22; [1996] ECHR 56 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - reserved; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calogero Diana -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 51; 15211/89; [1996] ECHR 51 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Domenichini -v- Italy 15943/90; [1996] ECHR 55; [1996] ECHR 55 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons The court was concerned with the monitoring of the correspondence of prisoners, including legal correspondence. The Italian law permitted such monitoring if a judge, in his discretion, ordered it in a reasoned decision. Held: "The Court reiterates that while a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion, it is impossible to attain absolute certainty in the framing of the law, and the likely outcome of any search for certainty would be excessive rigidity. In this instance, however, Law No 354 leaves the authorities too much latitude. In particular, it goes no further than identifying the category of persons whose correspondence may be censored and the competent court, without saying anything about the length of the measure or the reasons that may warrant it. The gaps in . . . the Law weigh in favour of rejecting the Government's argument. In sum, the Italian Law does not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities, so that Mr. Domenichini did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. There has therefore been a breach of Article 8." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ceteroni -v- Italy 22461/93; 22465/93 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Not necessary to examine P4-2; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Bizzotto -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 50; 22126/93 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5-1 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â PrÃ–Tsch -v- Austria [1996] ECHR 57; 15508/89; [1996] ECHR 57 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Silva Rocha -v- Portugal 18165/91; [1996] ECHR 58; [1996] ECHR 58 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights The applicant was tried on charges of aggravated homicide and others, but the court found him mentally disturbed, preventing criminal responsibility. He was dangerous it and ordered him to be detained. This security measure remained for a minimum period of three years, for general deterrence reasons. He challenged his detention under article 5(1) claiming a violation of article 5(4) there being no provision for judicial supervision of his confinement. The commission said the case could not be distinguished from the cases of Winterwerp and X v United Kingdom and declared his complaint admissible. Held: There was no violation. He had been lawfully detained within the meaning of article 5(1). There had been no violation of article 5(4) because it involved a homicide committed by a person who could not be held responsible for his actions and who was at the same time dangerous. The seriousness of the offences together with the risk that he represented for himself as well as for others could reasonably justify his being removed from society for at least three years. For that period the review required by article 5(4) of the Convention was incorporated in the detention decision taken in this instance by the Oporto Criminal Court. It was therefore not until those three years had elapsed that the applicant's right to 'take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided … by a court' at reasonable intervals took effect. The court noted that legislation applied to Mr Silva Rocha, provided for a periodic and automatic judicial review after two years and made it possible for him to apply to the court at any moment to have the detention measure lifted." The intervals between the reviews were not excessive and he was discharged as soon as he had ceased to be dangerous. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ceteroni -v- Italy 22461/93;22465/93; [1996] ECHR 53 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Not necessary to examine P4-2; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ahmet Sadik -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 49; 18877/91; [1996] ECHR 49 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ceteroni -v- Italy 22461/93; [1996] ECHR 53 15 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Chahal -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 15-Nov-1996 - Times, 28 November 1996; 70/1995; 22414/93; (1996) 23 EHRR 413; [1996] ECHR 54 Â Konkama -v- Sweden [1996] ECHR 79; (1996) 87-A DR 78 25 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Admissibility decision. The right to fish or hunt is a civil right within the meaning of article 6. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Wingrove -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 25-Nov-1996 - Times, 05 December 1996; Case 19/1995; [1997] 24 EHRR 1; 17419/90; [1996] ECHR 60; [1996] ECHR 60 Â Selmouni -v- France [1996] ECHR 100; 25803/94 25 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Police European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Ure -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 27-Nov-1996 - 28027/95 Â Burrows -v- United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 73; 27558/95 27 Nov 1996 ECHR Liddy P Human Rights, Child Support (Admissibility) [ Bailii ] Â Ahmut -v- The Netherlands (1997) 24 EHRR 62; 21702/93; [1996] ECHR 61; [1996] ECHR 102 28 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights The bond between natural parents and their children is a strong indicator of the existence of family life: “from the moment of the child's birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to “family life”, which subsequent events cannot break save in exceptional circumstances”. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nsona -v- The Netherlands [1996] ECHR 62; 23366/94; [1996] ECHR 62 28 Nov 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (victim); No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine Art. 13 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Olutu -v- Home Office; CA 29-Nov-1996 - [1997] 1 WLR 328; [1996] EWCA Civ 1070; [1997] 1 All ER 385 Â Finland 24949/94 3 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Employment (Commission) An employee of the Finnish State Railways was dismissed for failing to respect his working hours on the basis that to work after sunset on a Friday was forbidden by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, of which he was a member. Held: Although his refusal was motivated by religious convictions, such a situation did not give rise to protection under Article 9(1). He was not prevented from manifesting his religion or belief (inter alia, he was free to resign). European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Citers Â Konttinen -v- Finland 249/49/94; (1996) 87-A DR 68 3 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) The applicant was a civil servant and a Seventh-day Adventist. He was dismissed for his refusal to continue working after sunset on Fridays. His contract required him to work on Friday evenings after sunset. Held: The claim was manifestly ill-founded. The applicant had a duty to accept certain obligations to the State employer, including "…..the obligation to observe the rule governing his working hours. He was cautioned by his employer, not having relinquished his post after the irreconcilable conflict arose between his religious convictions and his working hours. In these particular circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant was not dismissed because of his religious convictions but for having refused to respect his working hours. This refusal, even if motivated by his religious convictions, cannot as such be considered protected by Article 9 para. 1. Nor has the applicant shown that he was pressured to change his religious views or prevented from manifesting his religion or belief.The Commission would add that, having found his working hours to conflict with his religious convictions, the applicant was free to relinquish his post. The Commission regards this as the ultimate guarantee of his right to freedom of religion. In sum there is no indication that the applicant's dismissal interfered with the exercise of his rights under Article 9 para.1" European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers Â Jose Antonio Urrutikoetxea -v- France 31113/96; [1996] ECHR 98 5 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Vacher -v- France [1996] ECHR 67; 20368/92; [1996] ECHR 67 17 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ahmed -v- Austria 24 EHRR 278; 25964/94; [1996] ECHR 63; (1996) 24 EHRR 278 17 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights, Immigration Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The court noted that Somalia (the country to which Austria had proposed expelling the applicant): "was still in a state of civil war and fighting was going on between a number of clans vying with each other for control of the country. There was no indication that the dangers to which the applicant would have been exposed in 1992 had ceased to exist or that any public authority would be able to protect him." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Duclos -v- France 20940/92 ; 20941/92 ; 209 17 Dec 1996 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 20940/92; 20941/92; 20942/92 Â Â Terra Woningen BV -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 17-Dec-1996 - [1996] ECHR 66; 20641/92; (1997) 24 EHRR 456 Â Duclos -v- France 20940/92; [1996] ECHR 64 17 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Duclos -v- France 20940/92;20941/92;20942/92; [1996] ECHR 64 17 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights ECHR 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. [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Saunders -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 17-Dec-1996 - Times, 18 December 1996; 19187/91; [1997] 23 EHRR 313; 1996-VI; [1998] 1 BCLC 362; [1996] ECHR 65 Â Â Aksoy -v- Turkey; ECHR 18-Dec-1996 - 21987/93; [1997] 23 EHHR 533; [1996] ECHR 68 Â Efstratiou -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 69; 24095/94 18 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Loizidou -v- Turkey (Merits) [1996] ECHR 70; 15318/89 18 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights The court was asked whether Turkey was answerable under the Convention for its acts in Northern Cyprus. Held. It was unnecessary to determine whether Turkey actually exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the authorities of the TRNC. It was obvious from the fact that more than 30,000 Turkish military personnel were engaged in active duties in northern Cyprus that her army exercised effective control over that part of the island. Such control entailed her responsibility for the policies and actions of the TRNC. Those affected by such policies or actions (including the applicant) therefore came within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey for the purposes of Article 1 of the ECHR. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] Â Scott -v- Spain [1996] ECHR 71; 21335/93; [1996] ECHR 71 18 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Valsamis -v- Greece 21787/93; [1996] ECHR 72; (1996) 24 EHRR 294; [1996] ECHR 72 18 Dec 1996 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings A child was punished by her school for refusing to attend a National Day parade in contravention of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, to which her parents were also party. Held: The application failed. Article 9 did not confer a right to exemption from disciplinary rules which applied generally and in a neutral manner and there had been no interference with the child's right to freedom to manifest her religion or belief. European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O'Brien Times, 17 January 1997; [1996] EWHC Admin 388 19 Dec 1996 QBD Latham J Media, Human Rights, Prisons A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: "The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence before me, therefore justified as the minimum interference necessary with the right of free speech to meet the statutory objectives." However the court upheld the need to regulate access by professional journalists acting as such to prisons and prisoners: "There is no doubt that restrictions on visits are necessary for the proper regulation and management of prisons, and for the treatment, discipline and control of inmates. It seems to me to be entirely proper that the primary restriction should be that the only visitors should be family and friends. This accords with the general and beneficial policy to ensure that, so far as possible, an inmate retains his family and social connections. Beyond those categories there has to be some justification, it seems to me, for a visit, in order to ensure that access to inmates is not exploited for purposes which could be inimical to proper management of and discipline within prisons." and "I consider that a restriction preventing an inmate from communicating orally with the media in a visit unless the representative of the media gives an undertaking not to use the material obtained at that visit is a restriction on the right of free speech. . . . The test is whether or not the restriction is necessary in order to achieve the statutory objectives. In the present context, these objectives include the need to keep visits within sensible bounds for the ordinary management of the prison, and the discipline and control of inmates. This clearly entitles rules to be made which preclude access to the media, in any form, merely for the purposes of purveying general complaints, tittle tattle or other material which may be mischievous or offensive. In particular, as was recognised in Bamber, proper discipline and control includes consideration of the effect of inmates' activities on others. I am therefore quite satisfied that Rule 33(1) is lawful in including 'the interests of any persons' as a material consideration when deciding what restrictions are appropriate on communications between inmates and others. It follows, in my view, that the prohibition on communicating with the media by letter save where the inmate is making serious representations about his or her conviction or sentence. or is otherwise part of a serious comment about crime, the processes of justice or the penal system, meets the Leech test of being the minimum interference necessary to achieve the statutory objectives." Prison Act 1952 47 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Human Rights - From: 1996 To: 1996