

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: 1999 To: 1999 This page lists 261 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015. Â Â Messina -v- Italy; ECHR 1999 - ECHR 2000-X; 25498/94; ECHR 1999-V; [2000] ECHR 438; [2000] ECHR 440 Â Ganusauskas -v- Lithuania 47922/99 1999 Human Rights (Admissibility) The recall of the applicant to prison was held not to involve the determination of any criminal charge against him. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers Â Â Ould Barar -v- Sweden; ECHR 1999 - (1999) 28 EHRR CD 213 Â Â De la Cierva Osorio de Moscoso and Others -v- Spain; ECHR 1999 - ECHR 1999-VII Â Â Marzari -v- Italy; ECHR 1999 - (1999) 28 EHRR CD 175 Â Â Adamson -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 1999 - (1999) 28 EHRR CD209 Â National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another -v- Minister of Justice and Others 1999 (1) SA 6 1999 Sachs J, Ackermann J Commonwealth, Human Rights (South African Constitutional Court) Application was made to have declared constitutionally invalid laws against homosexuality. Sachs J held: " There is no good reason why the concept of privacy should, as was suggested, be restricted simply to sealing off from State control what happens in the bedroom, with the doleful subtext that you may behave as bizarrely and shamefully as you like, on the understanding that you do so in private. It has become a judicial cliché to say that privacy protects people, not places. Blackmun J in Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v Hardwick et al 478 US 186 (1986) made it clear that the much quoted 'right to be left alone' should not be seen simply as a negative right to occupy a private space free from government intrusion, but as a right to get on with your life, express your personality and make fundamental decisions abut your intimate relationships without penalisation. Just as 'liberty must be viewed not merely "negatively or selfishly as a mere absence of restraint but positively and socially as an adjustment of restraints to the end of freedom of opportunity"', so must privacy be regarded as suggesting at least some responsibility on the State to promote conditions in which personal self-realisation can take place." 1 Citers Â Â Kok -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 1999 - 43149/98; [2000] ECHR 706 Â Â Karassev -v- Finland; ECHR 12-Jan-1999 - 31414/96 Â Â Slobodan Milosevic -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 19-Jan-1999 - 77631/01; [1999] ECHR 194 Â Janowski -v- Poland [1999] ECHR 3; 25716/94; (2000) 29 EHRR 705 21 Jan 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Van Geyseghem -v- Belgium [1999] ECHR 5; 26103/95 21 Jan 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Garcia Ruiz -v- Spain [1999] ECHR 2; 30544/96 21 Jan 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I. [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Fressoz and Roire -v- France; ECHR 21-Jan-1999 - 29183/95; [1999] ECHR 1; (1999) 31 EHRR 28; [1997] ECHR 194 Â Tsavachidis -v- Greece [1999] ECHR 4; 28802/95 21 Jan 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list - (arrangement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adamson -v- The United Kingdom 42293/98; [1999] ECHR 192; (1999) 28 EHRR CD 209 26 Jan 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The Court reached the following conclusion as to the purpose of the notification requirements for sex offenders: "the purpose of the measures in question is to contribute towards a lower rate of reoffending in sex offenders, since a person's knowledge that he is registered with the police may dissuade him from committing further offences and since, with the help of the register, the police may be enabled to trace suspected reoffenders faster." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Refik Saric -v- Denmark 31913/96 2 Feb 1999 ECHR Human Rights The appellant complained that the absence of reasons from a jury's verdict meant that the trial had been unfair. Held: "The absence of reasons in the High Court's judgment was due to the fact that the applicant's guilt was determined by a jury, something which cannot in itself be considered contrary to the Convention (see Application No. 15957/90, decision of 30 March 1992, D.R. 72, p. 195)." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers Â KK -v- Finland 7779/04; [2007] ECHR 418 9 Feb 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms; HL 11-Feb-1999 - Times, 09 July 1999; Gazette, 28 July 1999; [1999] UKHL 33; [2000] 2 AC 115; [1999] 3 All ER 400; [1999] 3 WLR 328; [1999] EMLR 689; (1999) 7 BHRC 411; (1999) 2 CHRLD 359 Â Cable And Others -v- The United Kingdom 24436/94; 24583/94; 32944/96; 32024/96; 31899/96; 31434/96; 31399/96; 30462/96; 30461/96; 30460/96; 30277/96; 30276/96; 30239/96; 30236/96; 28790/95; 28009/95; 27772/95; 27762/95; 27760/95; 27409/95; 24582/94; 31400/96; 27389/95; 27357/95; 27346/95; 27342/95; 27341/95; 26525/95; 26271/95; 25941/94; 25940/94; 25939/94; 25937/94; 24895/94; 24584/94; [1999] ECHR 8 18 Feb 1999 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 partial award. [ Bailii ] Â Buscarini And Others -v- San Marino [2000] 30 EHRR 208; [1999] ECHR 7; 24645/94 18 Feb 1999 ECHR Human Rights (Grand Chamber) Elected MPs complained that they were not allowed to take their seats unless they swore an oath in religious form. Held: This requirement was not compatible with article 9. "That freedom [Article 9 freedom of thought] entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion." European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Cable et Al -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - Times, 11 March 1999; (2000) 30 EHRR 1032; 24436/94;24582/94;24583/94;; [1999] ECHR 8 Â Â Beer And Regan -v- Germany; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - 28934/95; [1999] ECHR 6 Â Â Laino -v- Italy; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - [1999] ECHR 10; 33158/96 Â Â Larkos -v- Cyprus; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - 29515/95; (1999) 30 EHRR 597; [1999] ECHR 11 Â Â Waite and Kennedy -v- Germany; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - 26083/94; [1999] 30 EHRR 261; [1999] ECHR 13; [1999] 6 BHRC 499 Â Hood -v- The United Kingdom 27267/95; [1999] ECHR 9 18 Feb 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; No violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Matthews -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - Times, 03 March 1999; 24833/94; [1999] ECHR 12; (1999) 28 EHRR 361; [2011] ECHR 1895 Â O'Connor -v- Chief Adjudication Officer & Another Times, 11 March 1999; Gazette, 24 March 1999; [1999] ELR 209 11 Mar 1999 CA Benefits, Education, Human Rights Regulations providing that a student stayed such until he concluded, or was dismissed from a course, were deeming provisions, and a student taking a year out after failing his exams, remained a student and was unable to claim benefits by way of income support. Article 2 did not require the state to subsidise a student in excercising his right to take up the education it offered. Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967) 1 Citers Â Hood -v- United Kingdom Times, 11 March 1999; 17267/95 11 Mar 1999 ECHR Human Rights The English system of courts martial was unlawful in not allowing a fair trial, because of the role of the convening officer who both prosecuted and could at any time intervene effectively to vacate the trial and start again. European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 and 6 Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ali Dinc [1999] INLR 256; [1999] EWCA Civ 990; [1999] EWCA Civ 990 15 Mar 1999 CA Immigration, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights When deciding whether to order a deportation, the Home Secretary will have much material not before the courts, including as to conditions in the place to which the applicant might be deported), and he is better placed to take a wider policy-based view on the key question as to whether removal can be justified as ‘necessary in the interests of a democratic society'. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Ex parte Motion Spath Holme Limited; Admn 16-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 229 Â Darrin Roger Thomas and Haniff Hilaire -v- Cipriani Baptiste Times, 23 March 1999; [1999] UKPC 13; (Appeal No 60 of 1998); [1999] 3 WLR 249; [2000] 2 AC 1 17 Mar 1999 PC Lord Millett Human Rights, Commonwealth, Criminal Sentencing (Trinidad and Tobago) If the reason for delay in executing a prisoner was the slowness of bodies with whom appeals had been undertaken, that delay itself was not to be considered a good reason for preventing the execution. A delay period above 18m would be disregarded. The phrase 'due process of law' is a compendious expression in which the word 'law' does not refer to any particular law and is not a synonym for common law or statute. Rather it invokes the concept of the rule of law itself and the universally accepted standards of justice observed by civilised nations which observe the rule of law." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â Papachelas -v- Greece [1999] ECHR 18; [2000] ECHR 137; 31423/96; ECHR 1999-II; [2000] ECHR 138 25 Mar 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1 (amount of compensation); Violation of P1-1 (presumption); Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings; Just satisfaction reserved Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-II 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah; HL 25-Mar-1999 - Gazette, 28 April 1999; Times, 26 March 1999; [1999] UKHL 20; [1999] 2 AC 629; [1999] 2 All ER 545; [1999] Imm AR 283; 6 BHRC 356; [1999] 2 WLR 1015; [1999] INLR 144 Â Pelissier and Sassi -v- France 25444/94; [1999] ECHR 17; (1999) 30 EHRR 715; [1999] ECHR 17; [2010] ECHR 1427; [2010] ECHR 1881 25 Mar 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-II European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Musial -v- Poland [1999] ECHR 15; 24557/94; [1999] ECHR 15 25 Mar 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-II [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iatridis -v- Greece [1999] ECHR 14; 31107/96; (1999) 30 EHRR 97 25 Mar 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Just satisfaction reserved Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-II 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Nikolova -v- Bulgaria; ECHR 25-Mar-1999 - [1999] ECHR 16; 31195/96; (2001) 31 EHRR 64 Â Â Hamilton -v- Mohammed Al Fayed; CA 26-Mar-1999 - Times, 30 March 1999; Gazette, 12 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1111; [1999] 1 WLR 1569; [1999] EMLR 501 Â Â Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebeline etc; Admn 30-Mar-1999 - Times, 31 March 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 277 Â Arnold Warren -v- United Kingdom 36982/97; [1999] ECHR 186 30 Mar 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Prosecutor -v- Furundzija [1998] ICTY 3; (1998) 38 ILM 317 1 Apr 1999 Crime, Human Rights (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The court described the main features of the law against torture: "There exists today universal revulsion against torture: as a USA Court put it in Filartiga v. Peña-Irala, 'the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind'. This revulsion, as well as the importance States attach to the eradication of torture, has led to the cluster of treaty and customary rules on torture acquiring a particularly high status in the international normative system, a status similar to that of principles such as those prohibiting genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, aggression, the acquisition of territory by force and the forcible suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination. The prohibition against torture exhibits three important features, which are probably held in common with the other general principles protecting fundamental human rights. The Prohibition Even Covers Potential Breaches. Firstly, given the importance that the international community attaches to the protection of individuals from torture, the prohibition against torture is particularly stringent and sweeping. States are obliged not only to prohibit and punish torture, but also to forestall its occurrence: it is insufficient merely to intervene after the infliction of torture, when the physical or moral integrity of human beings has already been irremediably harmed. Consequently, States are bound to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of torture. As was authoritatively held by the European Court of Human Rights in Soering, international law intends to bar not only actual breaches but also potential breaches of the prohibition against torture (as well as any inhuman and degrading treatment). It follows that international rules prohibit not only torture but also (i) the failure to adopt the national measures necessary for implementing the prohibition and (ii) the maintenance in force or passage of laws which are contrary to the prohibition. Let us consider these two aspects separately. Normally States, when they undertake international obligations through treaties or customary rules, adopt all the legislative and administrative measures necessary for implementing such obligations. However, subject to obvious exceptions, failure to pass the required implementing legislation has only a potential effect: the wrongful fact occurs only when administrative or judicial measures are taken which, being contrary to international rules due to the lack of implementing legislation, generate State responsibility. By contrast, in the case of torture, the requirement that States expeditiously institute national implementing measures is an integral part of the international obligation to prohibit this practice. Consequently, States must immediately set in motion all those procedures and measures that may make it possible, within their municipal legal system, to forestall any act of torture or expeditiously put an end to any torture that is occurring. Another facet of the same legal effect must be emphasised. Normally, the maintenance or passage of national legislation inconsistent with international rules generates State responsibility and consequently gives rise to a corresponding claim for cessation and reparation (lato sensu) only when such legislation is concretely applied. By contrast, in the case of torture, the mere fact of keeping in force or passing legislation contrary to the international prohibition of torture generates international State responsibility. The value of freedom from torture is so great that it becomes imperative to preclude any national legislative act authorising or condoning torture or at any rate capable of bringing about this effect. The Prohibition Imposes Obligations Erga Omnes. Furthermore, the prohibition of torture imposes upon States obligations erga omnes, that is, obligations owed towards all the other members of the international community, each of which then has a correlative right. In addition, the violation of such an obligation simultaneously constitutes a breach of the correlative right of all members of the international community and gives rise to a claim for compliance accruing to each and every member, which then has the right to insist on fulfilment of the obligation or in any case to call for the breach to be discontinued. Where there exist international bodies charged with impartially monitoring compliance with treaty provisions on torture, these bodies enjoy priority over individual States in establishing whether a certain State has taken all the necessary measures to prevent and punish torture and, if they have not, in calling upon that State to fulfil its international obligations. The existence of such international mechanisms makes it possible for compliance with international law to be ensured in a neutral and impartial manner. The Prohibition Has Acquired the Status of Jus Cogens. While the erga omnes nature just mentioned appertains to the area of international enforcement (lato sensu), the other major feature of the principle proscribing torture relates to the hierarchy of rules in the international normative order. Because of the importance of the values it protects, this principle has evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, that is, a norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even 'ordinary' customary rules. The most conspicuous consequence of this higher rank is that the principle at issue cannot be derogated from by States through international treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force. Clearly, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition against torture articulates the notion that the prohibition has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community. Furthermore, this prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate. The fact that torture is prohibited by a peremptory norm of international law has other effects at the inter-state and individual levels. At the inter-state level, it serves to internationally de-legitimise any legislative, administrative or judicial act authorising torture. It would be senseless to argue, on the one hand, that on account of the jus cogens value of the prohibition against torture, treaties or customary rules providing for torture would be null and void ab initio, and then be unmindful of a State say, taking national measures authorising or condoning torture or absolving its perpetrators through an amnesty law. If such a situation were to arise, the national measures, violating the general principle and any relevant treaty provision, would produce the legal effects discussed above and in addition would not be accorded international legal recognition. Proceedings could be initiated by potential victims if they had locus standi before a competent international or national judicial body with a view to asking it to hold the national measure to be internationally unlawful; or the victim could bring a civil suit for damage in a foreign court, which would therefore be asked inter alia to disregard the legal value of the national authorising act. What is even more important is that perpetrators of torture acting upon or benefiting from those national measures may nevertheless be held criminally responsible for torture, whether in a foreign State, or in their own State under a subsequent regime. In short, in spite of possible national authorisation by legislative or judicial bodies to violate the principle banning torture, individuals remain bound to comply with that principle. As the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg put it: 'individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State'. Furthermore, at the individual level, that is, that of criminal liability, it would seem that one of the consequences of the jus cogens character bestowed by the international community upon the prohibition of torture is that every State is entitled to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction. Indeed, it would be inconsistent on the one hand to prohibit torture to such an extent as to restrict the normally unfettered treaty-making power of sovereign States, and on the other hand bar States from prosecuting and punishing those torturers who have engaged in this odious practice abroad. This legal basis for States' universal jurisdiction over torture bears out and strengthens the legal foundation for such jurisdiction found by other courts in the inherently universal character of the crime. It has been held that international crimes being universally condemned wherever they occur, every State has the right to prosecute and punish the authors of such crimes. As stated in general terms by the Supreme Court of Israel in Eichmann, and echoed by a USA court in Demjanjuk, 'it is the universal character of the crimes in question ie. international crimes which vests in every State the authority to try and punish those who participated in their commission'. It would seem that other consequences include the fact that torture may not be covered by a statute of limitations, and must not be excluded from extradition under any political offence exemption." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Lemoine -c- France 26242/95; [1999] ECHR 19; [1999] ECHR 19 1 Apr 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Trome S A -v- Spain 27781/95; [1999] ECHR 20; [1999] ECHR 20 1 Apr 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (arrangement) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Chassagnou and Others -v- France; ECHR 29-Apr-1999 - 25088/94; (1999) 29 EHRR 615; 28331/95; [1999] ECHR 22; 28443/95 Â T W -v- Malta [1999] ECHR 23; 25644/94; [1999] ECHR 23 29 Apr 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits; Preliminary objection rejected; Violation of Art. 5-3; Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Aquilina -v- Malta; ECHR 29-Apr-1999 - 25642/94; [1999] ECHR 21 Â Antunes TomÃS Rebocho -v- Portugal [1999] ECHR 24; 34562/97; [1999] ECHR 24 30 Apr 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marzari -v- Italy 36448/97; [1999] ECHR 178 4 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Jean Cottenham -v- United Kingdom 36509/97; [1999] ECHR 185 11 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Saccomanno -c- Italie 36719/97; [1999] ECHR 27 12 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ledonne -v- Italy (No 2) [1999] ECHR 26; 38414/97; [1999] ECHR 26 12 May 1999 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 Ledonne -v- Italy (No 1) [1999] ECHR 25; 35742/97; [1999] ECHR 25 12 May 1999 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 Jaffredou -c- France 39843/98; [1999] ECHR 28; [1999] ECHR 28 19 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rekvenyi -v- Hungary [1999] ECHR 31; 25390/94; [1999] ECHR 31; [1999] ECHR 31; [1999] ECHR 31 20 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Crime Hudoc No violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+10; No violation of Art. 14+11 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III The level of precision required of domestic legislation depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ogur -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 30; 21594/93; [1999] ECHR 30 20 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights A nightwatchman at a mining site, the claimant's son, was killed one morning by Turkish security forces when he was coming off duty. The Government said that the scene of the incident had been used as a shelter by terrorists. The applicant claimed that he had been shot dead by the security forces without warning. The court considered the right of the next of kin to have access to a police investigation file into their relative's death. Held: The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention required that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. No such investigation had been conducted in this case: "It must be noted, lastly, that during the administrative investigation the case file was inaccessible to the victim's close relatives, who had no means of learning what was in it (see paragraph 15 above). The Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the decision of 15 August 1991 on the sole basis of the papers in the case, and this part of the proceedings was likewise inaccessible to the victim's relatives. Nor was the decision of 15 August 1991 served on the applicant's lawyer, with the result that the applicant was deprived of the possibility of herself appealing to the Supreme Administrative Court." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bladet Tromso and Stensaas -v- Norway 21980/93; (2000) 29 EHRR 125; [1999] ECHR 29 20 May 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Media A newspaper and its editor complained that their right to freedom of expression had been breached when they were found liable in defamation proceedings for statements in articles which they had published about the methods used by seal hunters in the hunting of harp seals. Held: The Court considered whether the newspaper had a reasonable basis for its factual allegations to decide whether it was correct to restrict the freedom to publish. "Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, its duty is nevertheless to impart - in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities - information and ideas on all matters of public interest." As to balance: "Article 10 of the Convention does not, however, guarantee a wholly freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern. Under the terms of paragraph 2 of the Article the exercise of this freedom carries with it 'duties and responsibilities' which also apply to the press. These 'duties and responsibilities' are liable to assume significance when, as in the present case, there is question of attacking the reputation of private individuals and examining the 'rights of others'. As pointed out by the government, the seal hunters' right to protection of their honour and reputation is itself internationally recognised under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Also of relevance for the balancing of competing interests which the Court must carry out is the fact that under article 6(2) of the Convention the seal hunters had a right to be presumed innocent of any criminal offence until proved guilty. By reason of the duties and responsibilities' inherent in the exercise of the freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism." European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte George Anthony Daly [1999] EWCA Civ 1476 25 May 1999 CA Prisons, Legal Professions, Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Nankissoon Boodram (also known as Dole Chadee) and Others -v- Cipriani Baptiste (Commissioner of Prisons) and Others Times, 01 June 1999; [1999] UKPC 30; [1999] UKPC 29 26 May 1999 PC Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth (Trinidad and Tobago) Where hanging was the only means for the carrying out of the death penalty, it was a lawful method of execution, and not necessarily cruel and unusual, despite evidence of the suffering caused by the process. A rule in the constitution preventing such punishment was disapplied because the procedure was already in existence when the constitution was passed, and the constitutoin preserved existing punishments. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â President of the Republic of South Africa -v- South African Rugby Football Union [1999] ZACC 9; [1999] 4 SA 147 4 Jun 1999 Commonwealth, Human Rights, Constitutional Constitutional Court of South Africa - The court considered an allegation of bias in the judge, it being said that they should have recused themselves: "The question is whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would on the correct facts reasonably apprehend that the judge has not or will not bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case, that is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submissions of counsel. The reasonableness of the apprehension must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judges to administer justice without fear or favour; and their ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training ad experience. It must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predispositions. They must take into account the fact that they have a duty to sit in any case in which they are not obliged to recuse themselves. At the same time it must never be forgotten that an impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial and a judicial officer should not hesitate to recuse herself or himself if there are reasonable grounds on the part of a litigant for apprehending that the judicial officer, for whatever reasons, was not or will not be impartial." 1 Citers [ SAFLii ] Â Caillot -c- France 36932/97; [1999] ECHR 32; [1999] ECHR 32 4 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nunes Violante -v- Portugal [1999] ECHR 33; 33953/96; [1999] ECHR 33 8 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Andri Paphiti -v- Turkey 16096/90; [1999] ECHR 195 8 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Zubani -v- Italy (Article 41) 14025/88 16 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected Â Abdurrahim Incedursun -v- The Netherlands [1999] ECHR 35; 33124/96 22 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M K -v- France 30148/96; [1999] ECHR 36; [1999] ECHR 36 22 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Laureano Santos -v- Portugal 34139/96; [1999] ECHR 37; [1999] ECHR 37 23 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Curtis Howard [1999] EWHC Admin 605 25 Jun 1999 Admn Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Nylund -v- Finland Unreported – 29 June 1999 29 Jun 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Family Sometimes the relationship between a child's unmarried parents will be so exiguous that there will be no ipso jure family life as between the natural father and his child. But family life may nonetheless be shown to exist: “the Court considers that Article 8 cannot be interpreted as only protecting “family life” which has already been established but, where the circumstances warrant it, must extend to the potential relationship which may develop between a natural father and a child born out of wedlock. Relevant factors in this regard include the nature of the relationship between the natural parents and the demonstrable interest in and commitment by the natural father to the child both before and after the birth.” In this case, the father's claim to family life failed. European Convention on Human Rights 8 Â Matter -v- Slovakia [1999] ECHR 38; 31534/96; [1999] ECHR 38 5 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 8 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â S N -v- Portugal [1999] ECHR 40; 33289/96; [1999] ECHR 40 6 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Millan I Tornes -v- Andorra [1999] ECHR 39; 35052/97 6 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erdogdu And Ince -v- Turkey 25067/94; [1999] ECHR 45 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Baskaya And OkÃ‡Uoglu -v- Turkey 23536/94; [1999] ECHR 43 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Surek -v- Turkey (No 2); ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - [1999] ECHR 52; 24122/94 Â Â Okcuoglu -v- Turkey; ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - [1999] ECHR 48; 24246/94 Â Baskaya And Okouoglu -v- Turkey 23536/94; 24408/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction to examine complaint under Art. 3; Lack of jurisdiction to examine complaint under Art. 14; No violation of Art. 7 (first applicant); Violation of Art. 7 (second applicant); Violation of Art. 10; Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1 (independence and impartiality); Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-2; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Â Surek -v- Turkey (No 3); ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - [1999] ECHR 53; 24735/94 Â Tanrikulu -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 55; 23763/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection joined to merits and rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 2 (killing of applicant [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Surek -v- Turkey (No 4); ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - [1999] ECHR 54; 24762/94 Â Gerger -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 46; 24919/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Crime Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, lack of jurisdiction); Violation of Art. 6-1 (independent and impartial tribunal); Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings There could be no breach of article 14 where the law concerned provided that "people who commit terrorist offences . . will be treated less favourably with regard to automatic parole than persons convicted under the ordinary law", because "the distinction is made not between different groups of people, but between different types of offence." European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erdogdu And Ince -v- Turkey 25067/94 ; 25068/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 7; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Karatas -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 47; 23168/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - Convention proceedings [ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Surek And Ozdemir -v- Turkey; ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - 23927/94; 24277/94 Â SÃœRek And Ã–Zdemir -v- Turkey 23927/94; [1999] ECHR 50 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Surek -v- Turkey (No 1); ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - [1999] ECHR 51; 26682/95; (1999) 7 BHRC 339 Â Akici -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 41; 23657/94; [1999] ECHR 43; [1998] ECHR 109 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 3 (applicant [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Polat -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 49; [2000] ECHR 652; 23500/94; 33645/96; [1999] ECHR 49; [2000] ECHR 661 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arslan -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 42; 23462/94; [1999] ECHR 41 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Ceylan -v- Turkey; ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - [1999] ECHR 44; 23556/94 Â Â Surek and Ozdemir -v- Turkey; ECHR 8-Jul-1999 - 24277/94; [1999] ECHR 50; 23927/94 Â Erdogdu And Ince -v- Turkey 25068/94; [1999] ECHR 45; 25067/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Baskaya And Okcuoglu -v- Turkey 24408/94; [1999] ECHR 42; 23536/94 8 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Broadcasting Standards Commission ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation [1999] EWHC Admin 659 9 Jul 1999 Admn Media, Intellectual Property, Human Rights The Corporation challenged a finding that it had infringed the privacy of a film subject of an investigation by the Watchdog programme. The corporation said that the subject, Dixons, as a corporation, had no right of privacy under Human Rights Law. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â General Mediterranean Holdings SA -v- Patel and Another; QBD 19-Jul-1999 - Times, 12 August 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1999] EWHC 832 (Comm); [1999] Lloyds Rep PN 919; [1999] 2 Costs LR 10; [2000] 1 WLR 272; [1999] 3 All ER 673; [2000] UKHRR 273; [1999] PNLR 852; [2000] HRLR 54; [1999] CPLR 425 Â Scarth -v- The United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 59; 33745/96; [1999] ECHR 59 22 Jul 1999 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 - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Santos -c- Portugal 35586/97; [1999] ECHR 58; [1999] ECHR 58 22 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Eri, Lda. -c- Portugal 31823/96; [1999] ECHR 57; [1999] ECHR 57 22 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caetano Baeta -c- Portugal 36671/97; [1999] ECHR 56; [1999] ECHR 56 22 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Lightfoot -v- The Lord Chancellor; CA 23-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 3025; [2000] HRLR 33; [2000] QB 597; [2000] BPIR 120; [1999] 4 All ER 583; [2000] BCC 537; [2000] 2 WLR 318 Â Â Redmond-Bate -v- Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 23-Jul-1999 - Times, 28 July 1999; [2000] HRLR 249; [1999] EWHC Admin 733; [1999] Crim LR 998; (1999) 7 BHRC 375; (1999) 163 JP 789; CO/188/99 Â Bottazzi -v- Italy 34884/97; ECHR 1999-V, § 30; [1999] ECHR 62; [1999] ECHR 62 28 Jul 1999 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 partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Selmouni -v- France (1999) 29 EHRR 403; 25803/94; [1999] ECHR 66; (2000) 7 BHRC 1 28 Jul 1999 ECHR L Wildhaber, P Human Rights, Police Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The claimant said that he had been severely beaten whilst detained in police custody for interview. Held: "Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . . Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15(2) even in the event of public emergency threatening the life of the nation . . In order to determine whether a particular form of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, the court must have regard to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment. As the European Court has previously found, it appears that it was the intention that the Convention should, by means of this distinction, attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering . . The acts complained of [in Selmouni] were such as to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish, and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance. The court therefore finds elements which are sufficiently serious as to render such treatment inhuman and degrading . . In any event, the court reiterates that, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 . . The court has previously examined cases in which it concluded that there had been treatment which could only be described as torture . . However, having regard to the fact that the Convention is a ´living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions', the court considers that certain acts which were classified in the past as ´inhuman and degrading treatment' as opposed to ´torture' could be classified differently in future . . It takes the view that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies." European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Immobiliare Saffi -v- Italy 22774/93; ECHR 1999-V; (1999) 30 EHRR 756; [1999] ECHR 65; [1999] ECHR 65 28 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings "the right to a court would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6(1) should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants – proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious – without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6". European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A P -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 61; 35265/97; [1999] ECHR 61 28 Jul 1999 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 partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferrari -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 64; 33440/96 28 Jul 1999 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 partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A L M -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 60; 35284/97; [1999] ECHR 60 28 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Lack of jurisdiction) Lack of jurisdiction (out of time) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Mauro -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 63; 34256/96; [1999] ECHR 63 28 Jul 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Uxbridge Magistrates Court & An ex parte Adimi; Regina -v- Crown Prosecution Service ep Sorani; Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ep Sorani; Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department and Another ep Kaziu; Admn 29-Jul-1999 - Times, 12 August 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 765; [2001] QB 667; [2000] 3 WLR 434; [1999] Imm AR 560; [1999] 4 All ER 520 Â Douiyeb -v- The Netherlands [1999] ECHR 67; 31464/96 4 Aug 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4 [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie; CA 20-Aug-1999 - Times, 14 September 1999; Gazette, 15 September 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 2100; [2000] 1 WLR 1115; [2000] Ed CR 140; [2000] ELR 445 Â Â Detective Inspector Todd Clements -v- Ed Moloney; CANI 2-Sep-1999 - Â Bosio And Moretti -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 68; 36608/97; [1999] ECHR 68 6 Sep 1999 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 partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ganusauskas -v- Lithuania Unreported, 7 September 1999 7 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights The applicant had been released on licence after serving half a six year prison service under a law which permitted the release of a prisoner on licence after serving half his sentence. There was then a series of court hearings which resulted in the order for his release being quashed. He sought to attack aspects of these court hearings. Held. The claim was manifestly ill-founded. There was nothing to suggest that the link between the original conviction and the re-detention was broken, so that there was no basis for asserting a violation of article 5.1. In rejecting the claim in respect of article 5.4 the court said: "The court notes that article 5 § 4 only applies to proceedings in which the lawfulness of detention is challenged. The necessary supervision of the lawfulness of detention 'after conviction by a competent court', as in the present case, is incorporated at the outset in the applicant's original trial and the appeal procedures against the conviction and sentence (see, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no 12, p 40, § 76). It follows that this part of the application is also to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention." 1 Citers Â L (A Child) -v- United Kingdom 34222/96; [1999] ECHR 191 7 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Fc -v- United Kingdom 37344/97; [1999] ECHR 184 7 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bohunicky -v- Slovakia [1999] ECHR 69; 36570/97; [1999] ECHR 69 13 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dc, Hs And Ad -v- The United Kingdom 39031/97; [1999] ECHR 196 14 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Buscemi -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 70; 29569/95; [1999] ECHR 70 16 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lustig-Prean and Beckett -v- United Kingdom 32377/96; [1999] ECHR 71; 31417/96 27 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Smith and Grady -v- The United Kingdom Gazette, 10 November 1999; Times, 11 October 1999; (1999) 29 EHRR 493; (1999) IRLR 734; (2001) 31 EHRR 620; [2000] 29 EHRR 549; [1999] ECHR 72; [2000] ECHR 383; 33986/96; [1999] ECHR 72; [1999] ECHR 180; 33985/96 27 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Employment, Armed Forces, Administrative The United Kingdom's ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into private lives and sexual activity were intrusive, and given the excessive consequences following, were also striking in their inability to admit of exceptions. The threshold at which the High Court and the Court of Appeal could find the Ministry of Defence policy irrational was placed so high that it effectively excluded any consideration by the domestic courts of the question of whether the interference with the applicants’ rights answered a pressing social need or was proportionate to the national security and public order aims pursued, principles which lie at the heart of the court’s analysis of complaints under article 8 of the Convention. Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No separate issue under Art. 14+8; No violation of Art. 3 or Art. 14+3; Not necessary to examine under Art. 10 or Art. 14+10; Violation of Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings European Convention on Human Rights 8 13 41 - Prison Act 1952 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lustig-Prean and Beckett -v- The United Kingdom 31417/96; 32377/96; (2000) 29 EHRR 548; (2001) 31 EHRR 601; [1999] ECHR 71; [2000] ECHR 381 27 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No separate issue under Art. 14+8; Just satisfaction reserved Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Intrusive questioning into the lives of members of the armed forces suspected of being homosexual, and their discharge on the sole ground of their sexual orientation, constituted a violation of their right to respect for their private lives under article 8 of the Convention in combination with article 14. European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Civet -v- France [1999] ECHR 73; 29340/95; [1999] ECHR 73; [1997] ECHR 195 28 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dalban -v- Romania [1999] ECHR 74; 28114/95; [1999] ECHR 74 28 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozturk -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 75; 22479/93; [1999] ECHR 75 28 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Smith And Ford -v- The United Kingdom 37475/97; [1999] ECHR 79 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Serre -c- France 29718/96; [1999] ECHR 78; [1999] ECHR 78 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Smith And Ford -v- The United Kingdom 37475/97 ; 39036/97 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Â Moore And Gordon -v- The United Kingdom 36529/97; [1999] ECHR 77 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Djaid -c- France 38687/97; [1999] ECHR 76; [1999] ECHR 76 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Moore And Gordon -v- The United Kingdom 36529/97 ; 37393/97 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Â Moore And Gordon -v- The United Kingdom 37393/97; [1999] ECHR 77; 36529/97 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Smith And Ford -v- The United Kingdom 39036/97; [1999] ECHR 79; 37475/97 29 Sep 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pauline Eunice Tangiora -v- Wellington District Legal Services Committee [1999] UKPC 42 4 Oct 1999 PC Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett Commonwealth, Human Rights PC (New Zealand) The appellants claimed that their treatment by the respondent infringed their human rights as guaranteed by the respondents signing the Convenant. They wanted to apply to the International Committee for relief, and applied to the respondent for legal aid. The respondent said it had no power to award legal aid for proceedings outside New Zealand. Held: The issue was decided by whether the Committee constituted a judicial authority within the New Zealand legal aid statute. The Act set out a detaled list of courts for which legal aid could be granted. The Committee was not included. The Committee had chosen its name because it was not adjudicative, although its members were judges of the highest standing. Held: The Board doubted that the Committee could be described as non-adjudicative, but eth issue was decided by the fact that it was not listed within the Act. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights First Protocol 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] Â Mangiola -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 85; 40179/98; [1999] ECHR 85 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â La Brocca And Others -v- Italy 40293/98; [1999] ECHR 84; 40293/98 ; 40295/98 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] Â Silvestri And Others -v- Italy 41329/98; [1999] ECHR 88; 41327/98; 41328/98 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bagedda Et Delogu -c- Italie 33992/96; [1999] ECHR 80; [1999] ECHR 80 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Silvestri And Others -v- Italy 41327/98 ; 41328/98 ; 413 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 41327/98; 41328/98; 41329/98; 41560/98 Â Pesoni -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 86; 39694/98; [1999] ECHR 86 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scaruffi -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 87; 33455/96; [1999] ECHR 87 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â La Brocca And Others -v- Italy 40295/98; [1999] ECHR 84; 40293/98 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Silvestri And Others -v- Italy 41327/98; [1999] ECHR 88 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Donsimoni -c- France 36754/97; [1999] ECHR 82; [1999] ECHR 82 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Conceicao Gavina -c- Portugal 33435/96; [1999] ECHR 81; [1999] ECHR 81 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesca -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 83; 40665/98; [1999] ECHR 83 5 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lawal -v- Northern Spirit Ltd EAT/1170/98; EAT/1171/98; [1999] UKEAT 1170_98_0610 6 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Employment, Human Rights, Natural Justice The applicant objected that one of the lay members of the Appeal Tribunal had, on other occasions, sat with a recorder who, as counsel, was appearing for a party in that appeal. Held: There was no real possibility of bias from this scenario. The tribunal had to be independent and impartial, but mere generalised allegations of pre-disposition to favour one party were insufficient to create any legitimate doubt as to impartiality. The assertion was that there was a risk that a lay member might be subconsciously influenced by the previous professional relationship. For something as insidious and diverse as bias, it was not reasonable to demand an authority on all fours before finding a breach of article 6, but the lay members were carefully chosen. The requirements of article 6 differed only slightly from those long required by common law. EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Appeal Tribunal European Convention on Human Rights 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969) - Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 7(9) 11 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Jain -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] EWCA Civ 3009 6 Oct 1999 CA Immigration, Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Perks and others -v- The United Kingdom 25279/94; 25277/94; (1999) 30 EHRR 33; 25280/94; 25282/94; 25285/94; 28048/95; 28048/95; 28192/95; 28456/95 12 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Damages Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Art. 5-5 inapplicable; Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (Perks); Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers Â Â Perks And Others -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 12-Oct-1999 - 25280/94; [1999] ECHR 89; 25277/94; 25279/94 Â Â Perks And Others -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 12-Oct-1999 - 25277/94; [1999] ECHR 89 Â Riera Blume And Others -v- Spain [1999] ECHR 90; 37680/97; [1999] ECHR 90 14 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 9; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Humen -v- Poland [1999] ECHR 91; 26614/95; [1999] ECHR 91 15 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Smith -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Times, 15 October 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999 15 Oct 1999 EAT Morison J Human Rights, Insolvency, Employment The claimant had been sole director of a company which went into liquidation. He sought a redundancy payment from the respondent under the 1996 Act. It was refused. The tribunal had applied Buchan. It had refused to hear an argument that the tribunal chairman was also employed by the respondent and could not therefore be independent. Held: Although the Human Rights Act was not yet in force, when looking at a case which would be reheard after it has come into effect, it is right to allow for the Act. Article 6 of the Convention allows a fair trial, yet in this case, the bankrupt's representative, and the tribunal hearing his case were both indirectly employees of the respondent. As a bankrupt, the claimant's affairs were managed by the Official Reciver, again an employee of the respondent. The appellant should have been given chance to argue the point before the tribunal. In any event that fact that the claimant was a controlling shareholder did not of itself disqualify him from being an employee and entitled to a redindancy payment. His appeal was allowed. Human Rights Act 1998 - European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6.1 - Employment Rights Act 1996 166 1 Cites Â Gelli -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 95; 37752/97; [1999] ECHR 95 19 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carrozza -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 92; 43598/98; [1999] ECHR 92 19 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Macciocchi -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 96; 43584/98; [1999] ECHR 96 19 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G S -v- Italy 34204/96; [1999] ECHR 94; [1999] ECHR 94 19 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Emmolo -c- Italie 42500/98; [1999] ECHR 93; [1999] ECHR 93 19 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scandella -c- Italie 43494/98; [1999] ECHR 97; [1999] ECHR 97 19 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Scalvini -c- Italie; ECHR 26-Oct-1999 - 36621/97; [1999] ECHR 103 Â Erikson -v- Italy 37900/97 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights The court described part of the state's obligation under article 2 as including "the obligation to establish an effective judicial system for establishing the cause of a death which occurs in hospital and any liability on the part of the medical practitioners concerned." The court held the application inadmissible on the ground that the authorities had carried out a thorough investigation into the events and it was open to the applicant to bring an action for negligence against the hospital. European Convention on Human Rights 2 1 Citers Â Calor Sud -c- Italie 36624/97; [1999] ECHR 98; [1999] ECHR 98 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cases of Ferrara And De Lorenzo -v- Italy 40282/98; [1999] ECHR 99 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ceriello -c- Italie 36620/97; [1999] ECHR 100; [1999] ECHR 100 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maini -c- France 31801/96; [1999] ECHR 102; [1999] ECHR 102 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferrara, De Lorenzo -v- Italy 40283/98; 40282/98 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Varipati -c- Grece 38459/97; [1999] ECHR 104; [1999] ECHR 104 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cases Of Ferrara And De Lorenzo -v- Italy 40283/98; [1999] ECHR 99; 40282/98 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Franzil -c- Italie 34214/96; [1999] ECHR 101; [1999] ECHR 101 26 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Zielinski -v- France; ECHR 28-Oct-1999 - 24846/94; 34165/96; [1999] ECHR 108; (2001) 31 EHRR 19; (1999) 31 EHRR 532 Â Pancenko -v- Latvia 40772/98; [1999] ECHR 181 28 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Anthony Briggs -v- Cipriani Baptiste (Commissioner of Prisions) and Others Times, 03 November 1999; [1999] UKPC 47; (Appeal No 31 of 1999) 28 Oct 1999 PC Human Rights, Commonwealth, Crime (Trinidad and Tobago) Where there were no remaining disputed facts which could give rise to an objection, it was not a breach of the human rights of an individual not to be executed except by due and lawful process. The system of petition within the Inter-American Convention was clear. [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â Â Reynolds -v- Times Newspapers Ltd and others; HL 28-Oct-1999 - Times, 29 October 1999; Gazette, 25 November 1999; Gazette, 17 November 1999; [2001] 2 AC 127; [1999] UKHL 45; [1999] 4 All ER 609; [1999] 3 WLR 1010; [2000] EMLR 1; [2000] HRLR 134; 7 BHRC 289 Â Â Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebeline and others; HL 28-Oct-1999 - Times, 02 November 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; [1999] UKHL 43; [2000] 2 AC 326; [1999] 3 WLR 972; [2000] Crim LR 486; [1999] 4 All ER 801; [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 275 Â Â Fitzpatrick -v- Sterling Housing Association Ltd; HL 28-Oct-1999 - Times, 02 November 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; [1999] 3 WLR 1113; [2001] 1 AC 27; [1999] UKHL 42; [1999] 4 All ER 705 Â Escoubet -v- Belgium [1999] ECHR 106; 26780/95; [1999] ECHR 106 28 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brumarescu -v- Romania [1999] ECHR 105; [2001] ECHR 47; 28342/95 28 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1 by reason of lack of fair hearing; Violation of Art. 6-1 by reason of refusal of right of access to court; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wille -v- Liechtenstein [1999] ECHR 107; 28396/95; [1999] ECHR 107 28 Oct 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+10; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iuliano -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 114; 35756/97; [1999] ECHR 114 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Errigo -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 110; 39789/98; [1999] ECHR 110 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gatto -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 112; 34469/97; [1999] ECHR 112 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Passadoro -c- Italie 36740/97; [1999] ECHR 116; [1999] ECHR 116 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ghilino -c- Italie 38116/97; [1999] ECHR 113; [1999] ECHR 113 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ali -c- Italie 37484/97; [1999] ECHR 109; [1999] ECHR 109 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.M.N. -c- Italie 37131/97; [1999] ECHR 111; [1999] ECHR 111 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vitale Et Autres -c- Italie 37166/97; [1999] ECHR 118; [1999] ECHR 118 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rossi -c- Italie 36148/97; [1999] ECHR 117; [1999] ECHR 117 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L.G. -c- Italie 37188/97; [1999] ECHR 115 2 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Memory Corporation Plc and Another -v- Sidhu and Another [1999] EWHC 849 (Ch) 3 Nov 1999 ChD Arden J Litigation Practice, Human Rights The court was asked whether as a matter of principle the privilege against self-incrimination can be claimed by a defendant who has been ordered to attend for cross-examination on affidavit. [ Bailii ] Â Osteo Deutschland Gmbh -v- Germany [1999] ECHR 119; 26988/95; [1999] ECHR 119 3 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bargagli -c- Italie 38109/97; [1999] ECHR 122; [1999] ECHR 122 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arno -c- Italie 38098/97; [1999] ECHR 121 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Debboub Alias Husseini Ali -c- France 37786/97; [1999] ECHR 124; [2011] ECHR 1553 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gozalvo -c- France 38894/97; [1999] ECHR 125 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gros -c- France 43743/98; [1999] ECHR 126 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â MC -c- Italie 38478/97; [1999] ECHR 127 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spacek, S R O -v- The Czech Republic [1999] ECHR 128; 26449/95 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel); No violation of P1-1 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Crossland -v- The United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 123; 36120/97 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aprile De Puoti -c- Italie 32375/96; [1999] ECHR 120 9 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 10 November 1999 10 Nov 1999 CA Administrative, Human Rights Where a person had been lawfully arrested, but later ordered to be released, because his continued detention was in breach of the Convention on Human Rights he could properly be denied compensation for the prior detention by the Secretary of State. There was no fault or maladministration on the part of the Home Secretary. The complainant had properly been arrested as a threat to national security and with a view to deportation. European Convention on Human Rights Â Starrs and Chalmers and Bill of Advocattion for Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow -v- Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow and Hugh Latta Starrs and James Wilson Chalmers; Starrs -v- Ruxton, Ruxton -v- Starrs Times, 17 November 1999; 2000 JC 208; [1999] ScotHC 242; [2000] HRLR 191 11 Nov 1999 ScHC Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Prosser Human Rights, Administrative, Natural Justice, Scotland The system in Scotland whereby lesser judges were appointed by the executive, for a year at a time, and could be discharged without explanation or challenge, meant that they could be seen not to be independent, and the system was a breach of the right to a fair trial by an independent judiciary. There was no open protocol for making such decisions. Unconscious fears of influence in a judge's mind could be enough. Lord Prosser referred to the temporary nature of the appointment of Sherriffs: "But I am inclined to see independence – the need for a judge not to be dependent on others – as an additional substantive requirement, rather than simply a means of achieving impartiality or a perception of impartiality. Independence will guarantee not only that the judge is disinterested in relation to the parties and the cause, but also that in fulfilling his judicial function, generally as well as individual cases, he is and can be seen to be free of links with others (whether in the executive, or indeed the judiciary, or in outside life) which might, or might be thought to, affect his assessment of the matters entrusted to him." European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ] Â Starrs -v- Ruxton [1999] ScotHC HCJ_259; [2000] UKHRR 78; 2000 SLT 42; [2000] HRLR 191; 8 BHRC 1; 1999 GWD 37-1793; 1999 SCCR 1052; 2000 JC 208; 1999 SCCR 1052 11 Nov 1999 HCJ Lord Reed Scotland, Crime, Human Rights, Constitutional The court was asked "whether the Lord Advocate has acted in a way which was incompatible with the rights of the accused under art 6(1) of the Convention to fair trial by ‘an independent and impartial tribunal’ within the meaning of that article." Held: The court set aside a conviction because the trial court was not an independent and impartial tribunal, having been presided over by a temporary judge. Lord Reed said: "Conceptions of constitutional principles such as the independence of the judiciary, and of how those principles should be given effect in practice, change over time. Although the principle of judicial independence has found expression in similar language in Scotland and England since at least the late seventeenth century, conceptions of what it requires in substance - of what is necessary, or desirable, or feasible - have changed greatly since that time." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â E P -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 129; 31127/96; [2001] ECHR 323 16 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Al-Fayed Times, 16 November 1999 16 Nov 1999 QBD Human Rights, European, Administrative When considering whether the Human Rights of a citizen had been infringed, the doctrine of proportionality was not to be extended to extend in turn such rights. At present the doctrine is part of European law, but not part of domestic English administrative law, and could not be called in aid to support an application for nationality. British Nationality Act 1981 Sch 1 (1) (b) Â Â Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina -v- Bayfield Properties Ltd; CA 17-Nov-1999 - [2000] QB 451; [2000] IRLR 96; [2000] 1 All ER 64; [1999] EWCA Civ 3004; [2000] HRLR 290; [2000] 2 WLR 870; 7 BHRC 583; [2000] UKHRR 300 Â Marques Gomes Galo -c- Portugal 35592/97; [1999] ECHR 132 23 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Galinho Carvalho Matos -c- Portugal 35593/97; [1999] ECHR 131 23 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arvois -c- France 38249/97; [1999] ECHR 130 23 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Johnson -v- Valks Times, 23 November 1999; Gazette, 01 December 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 1502; [2000] 1 All ER 450 23 Nov 1999 CA Robert Walker LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ Litigation Practice, Human Rights A person requiring leave to issue proceedings as a vexatious litigant, had also to obtain leave again before entering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The entering of an appeal is either the institution of new proceedings, or an application requiring leave as an application in any civil proceedings instituted in any court. Sir Richard Scott, Vice-Chancellor observed: "As a general principle, if a judge of the High Court, to whom application is made by a vexatious litigant for permission to institute proceedings, grants that permission, the leave that is granted franks the proceedings. Every judgment at first instance now requires permission to appeal for the case to be taken further. An application for that permission will receive the attention of either the first instance judge or, as it maybe, the Court of Appeal. A vexatious appeal will not be permitted. So once the High Court has given permission for proceedings to be instituted, a further application to the High Court for permission to institute an appeal is, as it seems to me, superfluous. As at present, however, there is no escape from the requirement that a further application for permission to appeal must be made to the High Court. I propose, the point having come to my attention via Mr Johnson's proposed appeal, to raise the question with the Rules Committee and see whether we are able to amend the Rules so as to make it clear that no further application under s. 42 of the 1981 Act is needed once permission to institute proceedings has been granted." Supreme Court Act 1981 42(1A) 1 Citers Â Â Hashman and Harrup -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 25-Nov-1999 - (1999) 30 EHRR 241; 25594/94; [1999] ECHR 133; (1999) 30 EHRR 241; [2011] ECHR 1658 Â Â Nilsen and Johnsen -v- Norway; ECHR 25-Nov-1999 - 23118/93; (1999) 30 EHRR 878; [1999] ECHR 134 Â Â Ernst And Anna Lughofer -v- Austria; ECHR 30-Nov-1999 - [1999] ECHR 136; 22811/93 Â Baghli -v- France [1999] ECHR 135; 34374/97; [1999] ECHR 135 30 Nov 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); No violation of Art. 8 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Faulkner -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 30-Nov-1999 - Times, 11 January 2000; 30308/96; [1999] ECHR 137 Â Â Nottingham City Council -v- Amin; QBD 2-Dec-1999 - Times, 02 December 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 1071 Â Â Memory Corporation -v- Sidhu (No 2); CA 3-Dec-1999 - Times, 15 February 2000; Gazette, 27 January 2000; Times, 03 December 1999; [2000] EWCA Civ 9; [2000] 1 WLR 1443 Â Â Bouilly -v- France; ECHR 7-Dec-1999 - [1999] ECHR 138; 38952/97 Â Â Freedom And Democracy Party (Ozdep) -v- Turkey; ECHR 8-Dec-1999 - [1999] ECHR 139; 23885/94 Â Â Pellegrin -v- France; ECHR 8-Dec-1999 - 28541/95; ECHR 1999-II; (2001) 31 EHRR 52; [1999] ECHR 140 Â Â Erdem -v- Germany; ECHR 9-Dec-1999 - 38321/97 Germany; [1999] ECHR 193 Â Katerina Taneva And Others -v- The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia 11363/03; [1999] ECHR 1944 10 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â M Ru -v- Italy 41892/98; [1999] ECHR 160 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Khalfaoui -v- France 34791/97; [1999] ECHR 158 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lombardo -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 159; 42353/98 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ercolino Et Ambrosino -c- Italie 40976/98; [1999] ECHR 151 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F. -c- Italie 40971/98; [1999] ECHR 152 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferreira De Sousa Et Costa Araujo -c- Portugal 36257/97; [1999] ECHR 153 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.B.Z., L.Z. Et S.Z. -c- Italie 41603/98; [1999] ECHR 154 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I. -c- Italie 40957/98; [1999] ECHR 155 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Rosa -c- Italie 40970/98; [1999] ECHR 149 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iadanza -c- Italie 40973/98; [1999] ECHR 157 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Blasiis -c- Italie 33969/96; [1999] ECHR 148 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marchetti -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) [1999] ECHR 161; 37702/97 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Masi -c- Italie 40972/98; [1999] ECHR 162 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Muso -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 40969/98; [1999] ECHR 164 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â P. -c- Italie 40966/98; [1999] ECHR 165 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Privitera -c- Italie 40967/98; [1999] ECHR 167 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R. -c- Italie 40964/98; [1999] ECHR 168 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iacopelli -c- Italie 41832/98; [1999] ECHR 156 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cittadini Et Ruffini -c- Italie 40955/98; [1999] ECHR 147 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Castelli -c- Italie 40962/98; [1999] ECHR 146 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cassetta -c- Italie 40961/98; [1999] ECHR 145 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cantacessi -c- Italie 40959/98; [1999] ECHR 144 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Antonakopoulos, Vortsela Et Antonakopoulou -c- Grece 37098/97; [1999] ECHR 143 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aiello -c- Italie 40963/98; [1999] ECHR 142 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Serif -v- Greece [1999] ECHR 169; 38178/97 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 9; Not necessary to examine Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mastroeni -v- Italy 41041/98; [1999] ECHR 163 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Penna -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 166; 35168/97 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A M -v- Italy [1999] ECHR 141; 37019/97 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-d; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ediltes S.N.C. -c- Italie 40953/98; [1999] ECHR 150 14 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â V -v- The United Kingdom; T -v- The United Kingdom 24888/94; (1999) 30 EHRR 121; Times, 17 December 1999; ECHR 1999-IX; 24724/94; [1999] ECHR 170; [1999] ECHR 171; [1999] Prison LR 189; [2000] 2 All ER 1024; 7 BHRC 659; [2000] Crim LR 187; 12 Fed Sent R 266; [2000] 30 EHRR 121 16 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Prisons The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the European Convention in that the decision maker was the Secretary of State rather than a court or tribunal independent of the executive. Held: In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be “inhuman” or “degrading”, the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. European Convention on Human Rights 3 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Skoutaridou -v- Turkey [1999] ECHR 172; 16159/90; [1999] ECHR 172 17 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â T -v- United Kingdom (Application 24724/94); -v- v United Kingdom (Application 24888/94) Times, 17 December 1999 17 Dec 1999 ECFI Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Administrative It was a breach of the human rights of a prisoner for a member of the Executive to set his sentencing tariff. That matter had to be decided by a court, or subject to a review by a court. The trial of young children in a very public forum had effectively denied to them any ability to participate in their own defence, and so had also been in breach of their rights to a fair trial. The trial itself of a ten year old was not necessarily inhuman or degrading treatment. European Convention on Human Rights Art 3, 6 Â W R -v- Austria [1999] ECHR 177; 26602/95; [1999] ECHR 177 21 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G S -v- Austria 26297/95; [1999] ECHR 175; [1999] ECHR 175 21 Dec 1999 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 partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta -v- Portugal (2001) 31 EHRR 47; 33290/96; [1999] ECHR 176; [2001] 1 FCR 653; (1999) 31 EHRR 1055 21 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not definitive, as is evidenced by the adverb notamment (in English: ‘any ground such as’) . . the [national] Appeal Court used a distinction dictated by considerations relating to the applicant’s sexual orientation, a distinction which cannot be tolerated under the Convention. Discrimination based on sexuality was covered by the in article 8 prohibition, not because "sex" includes "sexuality" but because the list is not exhaustive. European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Freitas Lopes -c- Portugal 36325/97; [1999] ECHR 174 21 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Demirtepe -v- France [1999] ECHR 173; 34821/97; [1999] ECHR 173 21 Dec 1999 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 - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Michael Mckenna -v- Her Majesty's Advocate [1999] ScotHC 253 30 Dec 1999 ScHC Lord Justice General and Lord Penrose and Lord Sutherland Scotland, Crime, Human Rights The appellant was charged with murder. A witness had since died, and he objected to the introduction of his written statement, on the basis that this would infringe his right to a fair trial. The evidence was likely to be decisive. Held: The fairness of the trial had to be considered as a whole. There was no basis in authority that admission of the evidence would necessarily prejudice the right to a fair trial. Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 259(5) - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 6.3 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Human Rights - From: 1999 To: 1999