

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: 2001 To: 2001 This page lists 1199 cases, and was prepared on 28 July 2015. Â Regina (Wright) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHRR 1399; [2001] EWHC Admin 520; [2001] LLR (Med) 478 2001 Admn Jackson J Human Rights, Prisons A serving prisoner suffered a severe asthmatic attack in his cell and died. An inquest was held at which the family of the deceased were present, but unrepresented for want of legal aid. There was no inquiry into the quality of the medical treatment the deceased had received in prison, but the responsible medical officer had been suspended from duty and had previously been found guilty of serious professional misconduct. In an action against the Home Secretary liability was admitted, thus precluding forensic investigation of the case. The family sought judicial review on the grounds, among others, of a failure to protect the life of the deceased and a failure of the procedural obligation arising under article 2 of the Convention to investigate the circumstances of the death. Held: An investigation, to satisfy article 2, must have certain features, being independent, effective, reasonably prompt, with sufficient public scrutiny, and the next of kin must be involved to an appropriate extent. "Where the victim has died and it is arguable that there has been a breach of article 2, the investigation should have the general features identified by the court in Jordan v United Kingdom at paras 106-109". On the facts that there had been no effective official investigation into the death of the deceased and held that there should be an independent investigation, to be held in public, at which the family should be represented. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Regina (C) -v- London South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 1110; [2002] 1 WLR 176 2001 CA Health, Human Rights A standardised period before a hearing to review a patient's detention that does not vary with the facts of each case may involve a breach of the Convention right. European Convention on Human Rights - Mental Health Act 1983 1 Citers Â Practice Direction (Family Proceedings: Committal) [2001] 1 WLR 1253 2001 Family, Human Rights, Contempt of Court 1 Citers Â Re B (Disclosure to Other Parties) [2001] 2 FLR 1017 2001 Children, Human Rights Witnesses and others involved in children proceedings have article 8 rights. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â B -v- The United Kingdom; P -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 261; 35974/97; [2001] ECHR 298; 36337/97; [2001] 2 FCR 221; (2002) 34 EHRR 19; [2001] Fam Law 506; 11 BHRC 667 Â Â Evans -v- Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 369 Â Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority) [2001] 2 FLR 1300 2001 FD Holman J Children, Local Government, Human Rights Local authorities involved in care proceedings will infringe the rights of parents and other individual parties to them under both Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention unless they conduct themselves with integrity, transparency and inclusiveness so as to satisfy the family's rights, necessarily to be construed in a wide sense, to a fair hearing and to respect for their private and family life. Held: The mother's appeal against the care order was dismissed. 1 Citers Â Choudhary -v- General Medical Council Appeal No 78 of 2001 2001 PC Lord Hutton Health Professions, Human Rights The Board heard an appeal against a final order of suspension for 12 months. It considered Madan's case. Held: The Board wished to reserve their opinion on the reasoning in the judgments that it was the application of Article 6 which required the IOC to weigh the doctor's interests against the protection of the public. But this reservation related not to whether Article 6 applied, but to the importation of the need for proportionality. European Convention on Human Rights 86 1 Citers Â Madan -v- General Medical Council [2001] Lloyds Med R 539 2001 Admn Newman J, Brooke LJ Health Professions, Human Rights There had been an interim suspension by the Interim Orders Committee of the GMC. Counsel for the GMC conceded the application of Article 6. Held: Newman J: "For myself, I regard it as highly likely that the interim suspension hearings engage Article 6. I regard the fact that it has not been argued fully as no impediment in the way in which we must proceed in this application and whilst I do not have any deep reservations as to the applicability of the Article I would have preferred full argument being to see the exact working out of the Strasbourg jurisprudence and to identify the precise point at which, and the precise reasons why, Article 6 is engaged." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers Â Â Mubarak -v- Mubarak; CA 2001 - [2001] 1 FLR 698 Â Regina (Vetterlein) -v- Hampshire County Council [2001] EWHC Admin 560 2001 Admn Sullivan J Human Rights, Licensing, Judicial Review The claimants challenged a planning permission granted to a waste disposal site, saying that it violated their article 8 rights. Held: The court asked whether there was reasonable and convincing evidence that the claimants quality of life would be so directly effected by the incinerator proposal as to engage article 8, "The answer to that question has to be no, even if one strictly applies the WHO guideline, ignoring the fact that it is only a guideline and not a mandatory requirement, and that a breach of the guideline does not automatically mean that there is serious pollution, much less that there is any significant danger to health. The claimant's is no more than a generalised concern as to the effects of the incinerator in terms of increased nitrogen dioxide emissions. Such generalised environmental concerns do not engage article 8, which is concerned with an individual's right to enjoy life in his own home." Sulivan J considered the power of a court hearing an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings to determine the issue immediately having heard the applications: "I am satisfied that all the arguments open to the claimants on matters of fact and law have been placed before the Court. In the circumstances it would be wholly artificial to consider the by now academic question: is the claimant's case arguable? Having heard the arguments I am in a position to determine the substantive application for judicial review on its merits." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Re B (Disclosure to other parties); FD 2001 - [2001] 2 FLR 1017 Â Imutran Limited -v- Uncaged Campaigns Limited [2001] 2 All ER 385 2001 Sir Andrew Morritt VC Litigation Practice, Media, Human Rights The court was asked to restrain the publication of confidential documents, and the effect of the section. The defendants argued that the requirement of likelihood imposed a higher standard than that formulated in American Cyanamid, but the claimant said that his case satisfied whatever the standard was applied. Theoretically and as a matter of language likelihood is slightly higher in the scale of probability than a real prospect of success. But the difference between the two is small. The court could not imagine many (if any) cases which would have succeeded under the American Cyanamid test but will now fail because of the terms of section 12(3). The court applied the test of likelihood without any further consideration of how much more probable that now has to be. Human Rights Act 1998 12(3) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Christian Education South Africa -v- Minister of Education [2001] 1 LRC 441; (2001) 9 BHRC53 2001 Sachs J Commonwealth, Human Rights (South African Constitutional Court) The court emphasised the fundamental importance of the right to express one's religion in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society. Sachs J observed: "The underlying problem in any open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom in which conscientious and religious freedom has to be regarded with appropriate seriousness, is how far such democracy can and must go in allowing members of religious communities to define for themselves which laws they will obey and which not . . Such a society can cohere only if all its participants accept that certain basic norms and standards are binding. Accordingly, believers cannot claim an automatic right to be exempted by their beliefs from the laws of the land. At the same time, the state should, wherever reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or else respectful of the law." 1 Citers Â Kacaj -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] INLR 354; [2002] Imm AR 213 2001 Admn Collins J, Mr C M G Ockelton and Mr J Freeman Immigration, Human Rights The relevant test of whether an order returning an asylum applicant to another country would infringe his human rights was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner faced a real risk of relevant ill treatment if returned. There must be substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would face a real risk of the adverse effect which he or she claims to fear. A reviewing court must assess the judgment which would or might be made by an adjudicator on appeal: "although the [Convention] rights may be engaged, legitimate immigration control will almost certainly mean that derogation from the rights will be proper and will not be disproportionate." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â In Re B and T (care proceedings: legal representation); CA 2001 - [2001] 1 FCR 512 Â Â Venables and Thompson -v- News Group Newspapers and others; QBD 8-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 16 January 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 32; [2001] Fam 430; [2001] 1 All ER 908 Â Centioni Et Autres -c- Italie 41807/98; [2001] ECHR 3 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Musiani -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 6; 41813/98; [2001] ECHR 6 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beck -v- Sweden 26978/95; [2001] ECHR 2; [2001] ECHR 2 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Muonio Saami Village -v- Sweden 28222/95; [2001] ECHR 5; [2001] ECHR 5 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salvatore -c- Italie 37827/97; [2001] ECHR 9 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Natoli -c- Italie 26161/95; [2001] ECHR 7 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aldo Piccirillo -c- Italie 41812/98; [2001] ECHR 1 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kawka -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 4; 25874/94; [2001] ECHR 4 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Biggin Hill Airport Ltd -v- Bromley London Borough Council Gazette, 18 January 2001; Times, 09 January 2001 9 Jan 2001 ChD Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights, Transport Applicants sought the right to fly from the airport. Local residents sought to intervene on the basis that if the lease controlling such rights was construed in such a way as to allow such an extension, this would interfere with their human rights. The lease had to be construed against the factual background as at the time it was entered into, and the Act could not affect that interpretation, and there was no basis for implying any such term into the lease. The local authority was not acting unlawfully in granting a declaration in the terms it proposed. Human Rights Act 1998 Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X Times, 09 January 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 740 9 Jan 2001 CA Schiemann LJ Immigration, Health, Human Rights An asylum seeker had come to be detained under the Mental Health Act. The Home Secretary, having refused the asylum application, ordered him to be repatriated. Held: Though the Secretary of State could only exercise his powers of removal under section 86 of the MHA if it appeared to him to be in the patient's interests and with the approval of the MHT, the use of his powers under the 1971 Act were not expressly circumscribed in relation to persons detained under the MHA. Though this might lead to greater harm for the applicant, it was not a breach of his Article 3 rights. The two schemes could run side by side, and the Home Secretary appeared properly to have considered the applicant's mental condition. Schiemann LJ said that the 1971 Act and the MHA deal with different categories of persons: the mentally ill and immigrants: "Parliament when enacting the Immigration Act 1971 had section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959, the predecessor of section 86 of the 1983 Act, in mind: see section 30 of the 1971 Act which extended existing statutory powers for the removal of aliens receiving in-patient treatment for mental illness to all persons subject to immigration control. Similarly Parliament when enacting the Mental Health Act 1983 had the Immigration Act 1971 in mind. Section 86(1) of the 1983 Act specifically refers to it and paragraph 30 of Schedule 4 and Schedule 6 to the 1983 Act expressly amended section 30 of the 1971 Act to which we have just referred. The interaction of these two Acts is something to which Parliament has adverted its attention yet what Parliament clearly did not do expressly was to circumscribe the Home Secretary in the use of his Immigration Act powers in the case of Mental Health Act patients. Parliament could have made special provision for those who fell into both categories, perhaps by providing a special regime for them, perhaps by providing that the Immigration Act regime was to prevail and be the only one, perhaps by providing that the Mental Health Act regime should be the only one. It did not do so. It left in existence two sets of powers either of which could be used subject to the conditions prescribed for the use of that power. . . There appears to us no reason why the two regimes should not run in parallel in the case of a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill. Clearly if the Home Secretary proposes to use his Immigration Act powers in relation to a mentally ill person that illness will be a factor which he must take into account. It is not suggested in the instant case that he has failed to do so." Immigration Act 1971 - Mental Health Act 1983 1 Citers Â Sahli -c- Belgique 38707/97; [2001] ECHR 8 9 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tanganelli -c- Italie 23424/94; [2001] ECHR 15 11 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Magyar -v- Hungary [2001] ECHR 11; 32396/96 11 Jan 2001 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 N C -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 12; [2002] ECHR 818; 24952/94 11 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Platakou -v- Greece 38460/97; [2001] ECHR 14; [2010] ECHR 2238 11 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Ashdown -v- Telegraph Group Ltd; ChD 11-Jan-2001 - Times, 06 February 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 28; [2001] 2 WLR 967 Â Imutran Ltd -v- Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another Times, 30 January 2001; Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 31; [2001] 1 All ER 38 11 Jan 2001 ChD Sir Andrew Morritt Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Human Rights The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the Act. The established test was whether the claimant had a real prospect of succeeding at trial in restraining publication, but the new test was whether he was likely to do so. Nevertheless the difference was so small as to make any calculation fruitless. Sir Andrew Morritt set out the approach to be taken: "Of course, the defendants' right to freedom of expression is an element in their democratic right to campaign for the abolition of all animal xenotransplantation or other experimentation. But they may continue to do that whether the injunction sought by Imutran is granted or not. The issue is whether they should be free to do so with Imutran's confidential and secret documents. Many of those documents are of a specialist and technical nature suitable for consideration by specialists in the field but not by the public generally. Given the provisos to the injunction sought there would be no restriction on the ability of the defendants to communicate the information to those specialists connected with the regulatory bodies denoted by Parliament as having special responsibility in the field." Human Rights Act 1998 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â P.M. -c- Italie 24650/94; [2001] ECHR 13 11 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lunari -v- Italy 21463/93; [2001] ECHR 10; [2001] ECHR 10 11 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Volosyuk V Ukraine 1291/03; [2007] ECHR 463; [2009] ECHR 454 13 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- John Spear, Philip Hastie and David Morton Boyd Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 30 January 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1751 15 Jan 2001 CMAC Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Armed Forces The fact that the President of a Court Martial was appointed within the same authority as was prosecuting, did not necessarily mean that the tribunal was not impartial. Such officers were typically appointed at the end of their careers, and they were appointed for a fixed term. There was no history of them being removed, and the circumstances were impartial. The test was not some neurotic distrust, but rather the absence of any appearance of bias on a reasonable view. The system met that standard. Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â C. Ar.L. -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 45882/99; [2001] ECHR 21 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iorillo -c- Italie 45875/99; [2001] ECHR 30 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Verini -c- Italie (NÂ° 3) 46992/99; [2001] ECHR 41 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Verini -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 46983/99; [2001] ECHR 40 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Verini -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 46982/99; [2001] ECHR 39 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Storti -c- Italie 47002/99; [2001] ECHR 38 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Silvia Ricci -c- Italie 46988/99; [2001] ECHR 37 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ravignani -c- Italie 46984/99; [2001] ECHR 36 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Piccoli -c- Italie 47003/99; [2001] ECHR 35 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Paolelli -c- Italie 46991/99; [2001] ECHR 34 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â P.I. -c- Italie 47000/99; [2001] ECHR 33 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baldini -c- Italie 47001/99; [2001] ECHR 19 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M.Q. -c- Italie 46985/99; [2001] ECHR 31 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ait-Said -c- France 42224/98; [2001] ECHR 16 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ianni -c- Italie 46986/99; [2001] ECHR 29 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G. Giappichelli Editore S.R.L. -c- Italie 46997/99; [2001] ECHR 28 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fracchia -c- Italie 46996/99; [2001] ECHR 27 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Elio Ciuffetelli -c- Italie 46999/99; [2001] ECHR 26 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciabocco -c- Italie 46989/99; [2001] ECHR 25 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carmelo Gallo -c- Italie 46990/99; [2001] ECHR 24 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cantu -c- Italie 47004/99; [2001] ECHR 23 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C Ar L -c- Italie 45883/99; [2001] ECHR 22 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Berto -c- Italie 46995/99; [2001] ECHR 20 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arienzo -c- Italie 46987/99; [2001] ECHR 18 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mancinelli -c- Italie 46994/99; [2001] ECHR 32 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ait-Said -v- France 42224/98; [2001] ECHR 16 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Antonini -c- Italie 46993/99; [2001] ECHR 17 16 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lee -v- The United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 46; 25289/94; [2001] ECHR 46 18 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of P1-1; No violation of P1-2; No violation of Art. 14 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Coster -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Jan-2001 - [2001] ECHR 44; 24876/94; [2001] 33 EHRR 20 Â Chapman -v- United Kingdom; similar Times, 30 January 2001; 27238/95; (2001) 33 EHRR 18; [2001] ECHR 43; (2001) 33 EHRR 479; (2001) 33 EHRR 399 18 Jan 2001 ECHR Planning, Discrimination, Human Rights The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notice were upheld by the inspector. Held: The needs of gypsies for accommodation, and the refusal of permission to locate caravans on land purchased by them for this purpose, was not a sufficient infringement of their right to family life to outweigh the needs of society as reflected in the planning laws. The caravans were occupied as an integral part of their ethnic identity, but the planning laws required a large margin of appreciation to be afforded. to a national government. The interference was proportionate. "It is important to recall that Article 8 does not in terms give a right to be provided with a home. Nor does any of the jurisprudence acknowledge such a right. While it is clearly desirable that every human being has a place where he or she can live in dignity and which he or she can call home, there are unfortunately in the Contracting States many persons who have no home. Whether the State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home is a matter for political not judicial decision." "When considering whether a requirement that the individual leave his or her home is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is highly relevant whether or not the home was established unlawfully. If the home was lawfully established this factor would self evidently be something which would weigh against the legitimacy of requiring the individual to move. Conversely, if the establishment of a home in a particular place was unlawful, the position of the individual objecting to an order to move is less strong. The court will be slow to grant protection to those who, in conscious defiance of the prohibitions of the law, establish a home on an environmentally protected site. For the court to do otherwise would be to encourage illegal action to the detriment of the protection of the environmental rights of other people in the community." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jane Smith -v- The United Kingdom 25154/94; [2001] ECHR 45; [2001] ECHR 45 18 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of P1-1; No violation of P1-2; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 14 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beard -v- The United Kingdom 24882/94; [2001] ECHR 42; [2001] ECHR 42 18 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 14 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brumarescu -v- Romania (Article 41) 28342/95 23 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - restitution of property; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Â Wildman -v- Director of Public Prosecutions; CA 23-Jan-2001 - Times, 08 February 2001 Â Â Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -v- Attorney-General and others; ChD 26-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 13 February 2001; [2001] EWHC 474 (Ch); [2001] 3 All ER 530; [2001] UKHRR 905; [2002] 1 WLR 448 Â Atak Et Autres -c- Turquie 19265/92; [2001] ECHR 49 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ayse Isik Et Autres -c- Turquie 19283/92; [2001] ECHR 50; [2001] ECHR 50 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciplak Et Autres -c- Turquie 19276/92; [2001] ECHR 58; [2001] ECHR 58 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aktas Et Autres -c- Turquie 19264/92; [2001] ECHR 48 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baltekin -c- Turquie 19266/92; [2001] ECHR 51 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dulas -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 60; 25801/94; [2001] ECHR 60 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 8; Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 18; Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 (former Art. 25); Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calkan Et Autres -c- Turquie 19272/92; [2001] ECHR 54; [2001] ECHR 54 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Varey -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 30-Jan-2001 - Times, 30 January 2001; 26662/95; [2000] ECHR 692 Â Ilhan Buzcu Et Autres -c- Turquie 19270/92; [2001] ECHR 68 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yusuf Celebi -c- Turquie 19275/92; [2001] ECHR 79; [2001] ECHR 79 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yilmaz Isik Et Autres -c- Turquie 19284/92; [2001] ECHR 78; [2001] ECHR 78 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vaudelle -v- France 35683/97; [2001] ECHR 76; [2001] ECHR 76 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sefer Karabulut -c- Turquie 19286/92; [2001] ECHR 75; [2001] ECHR 75 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Saniye Bilgin Et Autres -c- Turquie 19268/92; [2001] ECHR 74; [2001] ECHR 74 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oztekin -c- Turquie 19288/92; [2001] ECHR 72; [2001] ECHR 72 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozen -c- Turquie 19287/92; [2001] ECHR 71; [2001] ECHR 71 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cemile Karabulut Et Autres -c- Turquie 19285/92; [2001] ECHR 56; [2001] ECHR 56 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Bilgin Et Autres -c- Turquie 19267/92; [2001] ECHR 69; [2001] ECHR 69 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cihan -c- Turquie 25724/94; [2001] ECHR 57; [2001] ECHR 57 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hamdi Celebi -c- Turquie 19274/92; [2001] ECHR 65; [2001] ECHR 65 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gokmen Et Autres -c- Turquie 19281/92; [2001] ECHR 64; [2001] ECHR 64 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gokgoz -c- Turquie 19280/92; [2001] ECHR 63; [2001] ECHR 63 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gocmen Et Autres -c- Turquie 19279/92; [2001] ECHR 62 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erol -c- Turquie 19278/92; [2001] ECHR 61; [2001] ECHR 61 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Danis -c- Turquie 19277/92; [2001] ECHR 59; [2001] ECHR 59 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bozkurt Et Autres -c- Turquie 19269/92; [2001] ECHR 53; [2001] ECHR 53 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nuriye Buzcu -c- Turquie 19271/92; [2001] ECHR 70; [2001] ECHR 70 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pallanich -v- Austria [2001] ECHR 73; 30160/96; [2001] ECHR 73 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Capar -c- Turquie 19273/92; [2001] ECHR 55; [2001] ECHR 55 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Basic -v- Austria (No 2) [2001] ECHR 52; 29800/96; [2001] ECHR 52 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (noon-exhaustion) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Walder -v- Austria [2001] ECHR 77; 33915/96; [2001] ECHR 77 30 Jan 2001 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 - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Holzinger -v- Austria (No 1) [2001] ECHR 66; 23459/94; [2001] ECHR 66 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Holzinger -v- Austria (No 2) [2001] ECHR 67; 28898/95; [2001] ECHR 67 30 Jan 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fernandes Cascao -v- Portugal 37845/97; [2001] ECHR 80 1 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ayuntamiento de Mula -v- Spain 55346/00; ECHR 2000-I 533 1 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Under the settled case law of the Convention institutions local government organisations are public law bodies which perform official duties assigned to them by the Constitution and by substantive law and are therefore quite clearly governmental organisations. "In that connection, the Court reiterates that in international law the expression 'governmental organisations' cannot be held to refer only to the Government or the central organs of the State. When powers are distributed along decentralised lines, it refers to any national authority which exercises public functions." 1 Citers Â Â Stevens -v- School of Oriental and African Studies and others; ChD 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 February 2001 Â Her Majesty's Advocate and Another -v- Mcintosh Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 08 February 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 107; DRA No 12 of 2000; [2003] 1 AC 1078; [2001] UKPCD 1; [2001] 2 All ER 638; 2001 SC (PC) 89; [2001] 2 Cr App R 27; 2001 GWD 6-206; [2001] HRLR 20; 2001 SLT 304; 2001 SCCR 191; [2001] UKHRR 463 5 Feb 2001 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton Evidence, Human Rights, Scotland, Criminal Practice (High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with his article 6 rights. The first question was whether he remained a person "charged with a criminal offence". The Court felt not. The application was not initiated by the complainant, could only be made after a conviction, and was part of the sentencing procedure,. The defendant was accused of no additional criminal activity, the statement lodged in support of an application for confiscation order was an accounting statement and not an accusation, the sum ordered did not be the profit from drug trafficking or any other offence, and the time order to be served in the case of default related to the failure, not to any underlying offence, any risk that matters referred to in the statement might be subject to a later charge, left a possibility of double jeopardy, and the proceedings and did not conclude in the verdict. The statutory scheme laid down by a democratically elected parliament should not be readily rejected. The sources of the assets was known to the defendant and a defendant explain them would not be faced with a court order. Criminal confiscation proceedings do not amount to the bringing of a fresh criminal charge and thus Art. 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights is not directly engaged. However, a court is required to act with "scrupulous fairness" in making its assessment for the purposes of a confiscation order. Further, the proceedings are designed to be fully adversarial, affording the accused every opportunity to challenge evidence against him and to call witnesses. Human Rights Act 1998 - Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 3(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wilkinson And Allen -v- The United Kingdom 35580/97; [2001] ECHR 84; 31145/96 6 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bensaid -v- The United Kingdom 44599/98; (2001) 33 EHRR 205; (2001) 33 EHRR 10; [2001] ECHR 82; [2001] INLR 325; 11 BHRC 297 6 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Health, Immigration The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed that his article 3 and 8 rights would be infringed if he were removed to Algeria. His claim focused both on the medical treatment in the UK of which he would be deprived and the lack of such treatment in Algeria. Held: His case under article 3 was not made out: the risk that the applicant would suffer a deterioration in his condition if he were returned to Algeria was "speculative". "Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition . . Mental health must also be regarded as a crucial part of private life associated with the aspect of moral integrity. Article 8 protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world. The preservation of mental stability is in that context an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private life." European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Tammer -v- Estonia 41205/98; (2001) 37 EHRR 857; [2001] ECHR 83; (2003) 37 EHRR 43 6 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Media Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and the self-fulfilment of each individual. Criminal penalties imposed in respect of the reporting of a sexual relationship could not be said to violate Article 10 – notwithstanding that the persons concerned were the Prime Minister and a political aide. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wilkinson And Allen -v- The United Kingdom 31145/96; 35580/97; [2001] ECHR 84 6 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Â J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another -v- Caroline Graham and Another; CA 6-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 22 February 2001; Times, 13 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 117; [2001] Ch 804; [2001] 2 WLR 1293; (2001) 82 P & CR DG1; [2001] 18 EG 176; [2001] 2 EGLR 69; (2001) 82 P & CR 23; [2001] HRLR 27; [2001] 7 EGCS 161; [2001] NPC 29 Â Beer -v- Austria [2001] ECHR 81; 30428/96; [2001] ECHR 81 6 Feb 2001 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 - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Havering Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina -v- Wirral Borough Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Mckeown Times, 07 February 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 805 7 Feb 2001 QBD Criminal Evidence, Magistrates, Human Rights A magistrate considering an allegation of breach of bail, need not take account only of evidence which was strictly admissible. The Magistrates must take proper account of the evidential quality of what was presented, but it was not a breach of the defendant's article 5 rights to hear the case on this basis. The standards applicable under article 6 need not be the same as those under this article. In the absence of a power to adjourn, where the magistrates considered there was a need for an adjournment, then they should not detain the defendant, since this indicated a failure to establish the allegation to the requisite degree. Bail Act 1976 - Human Rights Act 1998 1 Citers Â Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall -v- Regina [2001] EWCA Crim 224; [2001] 2 Crim App R 16 9 Feb 2001 CACD Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Penry-Davey, And The Judge Advocate General Criminal Practice, Human Rights The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of the judge's direction as to the the conclusions to be drawn by the jury from his silence. Held: S34 must now be interpreted in the light of the 1998 Act. An appropriate balance has been drawn between the exercise by an accused of his right to silence and the fair drawing of an adverse inference. Where an appellant had received legal advice not to answer questions, it was the genuineness of the decision which is relevant and not its quality. The jury had to determine whether or not the real reason for the appellant's silence was because of the legal advice that he or she had received or was in truth that they had no or no adequate explanation to give to the case against them. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984 34 - Human Rights Act 1998 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Javed, Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Zulfiqar Ali; Regina -v- Same ex parte Abid Ali Times, 09 February 2001 9 Feb 2001 QBD Immigration, Human Rights The Home Secretary had designated Pakistan as a safe country for the return of asylum applicants. The applicants sought to review this decision. The Secretary submitted that the court was not competent to challenge his assessment since it had been approved by Parliament, unless it could be shown that he had acted in bad faith. Held: The Human Rights Act now places the Courts under a positive duty to give effect to the Convention, and one requirement in particular was a prohibition of torture and in human and degrading treatment. An effective remedy has to be provided to avoid breaches of this right. The court having given detailed consideration to the relevant material, it was clear that the decision to include Pakistan in the list of designated countries could only have been reached on an erroneous view of the facts, of the law or of both. The decision was plainly wrong. The schedule was provided in order to enable unsuccessful claims to be summarily and expeditiously disposed of where there was no risk to the life of person of the asylum seekers. There was in the clearest evidence that the applicants had been tortured in the past and he returned to Pakistan would be likely again to be the subject of torture. Other applicants would be subject to persecution. The declaration was granted. Â Lietzow -v- Germany [2001] ECHR 89; 24479/94; [2001] ECHR 89 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Schops -v- Germany [2001] ECHR 91; 25116/94 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Payne -v- Payne; P -v- P; Gazette, 08 March 2001; [2001] Fam 473; [2001] EWCA Civ 166; (2001) 165 JP 195; [2001] HRLR 28; (2001) 165 JPN 466; [2001] 1 FCR 425; [2001] UKHRR 484; [2001] 2 WLR 1826; [2001] 1 FLR 1052; [2001] 1 Cr App R 36; [2001] Crim LR 842 13 Feb 2001 CA Thorpe LJ P, Walker LJ, Butler-Sloss LJ Children, Human Rights The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties' daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child's right to family life. He had been refused residence. Held. The move was a serious interference with family life. The motivation of the parent, the reasonableness of the proposal, and the effects on the child were all important and relevant, but the judge had given proper consideration to these factors, and the paramountcy of the child's interests. Neither domestic case law nor human rights law created any presumption in favour of the applicant. Existing case law was to be reconsidered in the light of the 1998 Act. Thorpe LJ said: "the advent of the Convention within our domestic law does not necessitate a revision of the fundamental approach to relocation applications formulated by this court and consistently applied over so many years. The reason that I hold this opinion is that reduced to its fundamentals the court's approach is and always has been to apply child welfare as the paramount consideration. The court's focus upon supporting the reasonable proposal of the primary carer is seen as no more than an important factor in the assessment of welfare. In a united family the right to family life is a shared right. But once a family unit disintegrates the separating members' separate rights can only be to a fragmented family life. Certainly the absent parent has the right to participation to the extent and in what manner the complex circumstances of the individual case dictate." "In summary a review of the decisions of this court over the course of the last thirty years demonstrates that relocation cases have been consistently decided upon the application of the following two propositions: (a) the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration; and (b) refusing the primary carer's reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life is likely to impact detrimentally on the welfare of her dependent children. Therefore her application to relocate will be granted unless the court concludes that it is incompatible with the welfare of the children . . Thus in most relocation cases the most crucial assessment and finding for the judge is likely to be the effect of the refusal of the application on the mother's future psychological and emotional stability." He continued: "However there is a danger that if the regard which the court pays to the reasonable proposals of the primary carer were elevated into a legal presumption then there would be an obvious risk of the breach of the respondent's rights not only under Article 8 but also his rights under Article 6 to a fair trial. To guard against the risk of too perfunctory an investigation resulting from too ready an assumption that the mother's proposals are necessarily compatible with the child's welfare I would suggest the following discipline as a prelude to conclusion: (a) Pose the question: is the mother's application genuine in the sense that it is not motivated by some selfish desire to exclude the father from the child's life. Then ask is the mother's application realistic, by which I mean founded on practical proposals both well researched and investigated? If the application fails either of these tests refusal will inevitably follow. (b) If however the application passes these tests then there must be a careful appraisal of the father's opposition: is it motivated by genuine concern for the future of the child's welfare or is it driven by some ulterior motive? What would be the extent of the detriment to him and his future relationship with the child were the application granted? To what extent would that be offset by extension of the child's relationships with the maternal family and homeland? (c) What would be the impact on the mother, either as the single parent or as a new wife, of a refusal of her realistic proposal? (d) The outcome of the second and third appraisals must then be brought into an overriding review of the child's welfare as the paramount consideration, directed by the statutory checklist insofar as appropriate. In suggesting such a discipline I would not wish to be thought to have diminished the importance that this court has consistently attached to the emotional and psychological well-being of the primary carer. In any evaluation of the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration great weight must be given to this factor." Children Act 1989 13(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 - Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ezzouhdi -c- France 47160/99; [2001] ECHR 85; [2001] ECHR 85 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Krombach -v- France 29731/96; [2001] ECHR 88; [2011] ECHR 2108 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Richet -c- France 34947/97; [2001] ECHR 90; [2001] ECHR 90 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Garcia Alva -v- Germany 23541/94; (2001) 37 EHRR 335; [2001] ECHR 86 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights The complainant had been arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and was detained on remand. When he brought an application for review of his detention his lawyers were not given access to a number of documents in the file, including the depositions of a witness whose testimony was key evidence against him. The ground for withholding these was that consultation of these documents would endanger the purpose of the investigations. The Court held that there had been a violation of article 5(4). "In the Court's opinion, it is hardly possible for an accused to challenge the reliability of such an account properly without being made aware of the evidence on which it is based." and "The Court acknowledges the need for criminal investigations to be conducted efficiently, which may imply that part of the information collected during them is to be kept secret in order to prevent suspects from tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice. However, this legitimate goal cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions on the rights of the defence. Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect's lawyer." The court referred to referred to "the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned". 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gombert And Gochgarian -v- France 39781/98; [2001] ECHR 87; 39779/98 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Gombert Et Gochgarian -c- France 39779/98; [2001] ECHR 87 13 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Holub and Another Times, 13 February 2001 13 Feb 2001 CA Immigration, Human Rights, Education The right to education of a child under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, was not breached by an order enforcing immigration control with the effect of taking away from a good school a child who had become settled there. The Convention gave no right to an education in any particular country, and it would be invidious to try to compare different education systems. Non-absolute human rights are not engaged when a country deals with such issues as immigration control. Having taken account of the child's education in making his decision, that decision could not be faulted for this reason. European Convention on Human Rights Â In Re R (A Child) (Adoption: Duty to Investigate) Times, 13 February 2001 13 Feb 2001 FD Adoption, Human Rights Where a mother decided to give up her child for adoption, and was against the involvement of members of her family, there was no right in the family to receive information nor duty on Social Services to tell them about the adoption. There was no explicit right under the Human Rights Convention nor statutory provision which would impose such a duty, and there were clear circumstances where the passing on of such information to an extended family could cause actual harm. Â Â Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs -v- The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla; PC 14-Feb-2001 - [2001] 1 WLR 1040; [2001] UKPC 8 Â Dahlab -v- Switzerland 42393/98 - Admissibility Decision; [2001] ECHR 899 15 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Education, Ecclesiastical The applicant teacher had converted to Islam, and began wearig a headscarf. The local teaching authority had declared that she could not do so in school. The applicant complained that she had not been allowedd to manifest her religion. Held: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as enshrined by Article 9 of the Convention, represents one of the foundations of a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention. In its religious dimension, it is one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies freedom to manifest one’s religion. Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions. However: "weighing the right of a teacher to manifest her religion against the need to protect pupils by preserving religious harmony, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of the case and having regard, above all, to the tender age of the children for whom the applicant was responsible as a representative of the State, the Geneva authorities did not exceed their margin of appreciation and that the measure they took was therefore not unreasonable." European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Dahlab -v- Switzerland 42393/98; ECHR 2001-V 15 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights (Commission) A primary school teacher had been prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf at her school. Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The court acknowledged the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities when determining whether this measure was "necessary in a democratic society", and explained its role: "The Court's task is to determine whether the measures taken at national level were justified in principle – that is, whether the reasons adduced to justify them appear 'relevant and sufficient' and are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued… In order to rule on this latter point, the Court must weigh the requirements of the protection of the rights and liberties of others against the conduct of which the applicant stood accused. In exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, the court must look at the impugned judicial decisions against the background of the case as a whole." The need to protect the principle of denominational neutrality in Swiss schools was an important factor which militated successfully against the applicant's case. "freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as enshrined by Article 9 of the Convention, represents one of the foundations of a 'democratic society' within the meaning of the Convention. In its religious dimension, it is one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it. While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies freedom to manifest one's religion. Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions." European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Citers [ HUDOC ] Â Pialopoulos And Others -v- Greece [2001] ECHR 92; [2002] ECHR 535; 37095/97 15 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Attorney-General -v- Covey; Attorney-General -v- Matthews; CA 19-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 254 Â Â Regina -v- Charles, Regina -v- Tucker; CACD 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1755; [2001] 2 Cr App R 15 Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Isiko and Another Times, 20 February 2001 20 Feb 2001 CA Immigration, Human Rights, Family It was not an infringement of the human rights of a family to deport a husband who had no permission to reside in the UK, even though the deportee's wife had a child by an earlier relationship who could not be separated from her former husband. Difficult choices needed to be made between the need to protect family life and the need for society to have immigration control. If a fundamental right such as the right to family life was involved, the court should expect of decision makers that they took those duties seriously, but even so, should defer to the considered policies made by a democratically elected parliament. Human Rights Act 1998 Â Â Regina -v- Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham; Admn 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 582 Â Cankocak -v- Turkey 25182/94 ; 26956/95 20 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award Â Cankocak -v- Turkey 25182/94; [2001] ECHR 93 20 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Cankocak -v- Turkey 26956/95; [2001] ECHR 93; 25182/94 20 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Count Franz Von Brandenburg (aka Hanley) ) -v- East London & The City Mental Health NHS Trust, Snazell, Approved Social worker; CA 21-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 12 April 2001; Times, 28 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 239; [2002] QB 235 Â Regina (on the application of K) -v- Camden and Islington Health Authority Gazette, 20 April 2001; Times, 15 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 240; [2002] QB 198 21 Feb 2001 CA Master of the Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Buxton And Lord Justice Sedley Health, Human Rights, Local Government The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in hospital of a patient because of the absence of such proper provision was not an infringement of his human rights. Section117 does not impose on health authorities an absolute obligation to implement the conditions for a patient's discharge from hospital required by a tribunal; the authorities' duty is, in general, to use reasonable endeavours to secure compliance with those conditions. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR: "Putting on one side the question of compliance with article 5 of the Convention, I can see no justification for interpreting section 117 so as to impose on health authorities an absolute obligation to satisfy any conditions that a tribunal may specify as prerequisites to the discharge of a patient. The section does not expressly impose any such requirement, nor is it reasonable to imply such a requirement. The applicant's suggested interpretation would place upon health authorities a duty which, on occasion, would be impossible to perform. The applicant's skeleton argument suggested that there was more that the health authority could have done to persuade a forensic psychiatrist to provide the aftercare required by the tribunal. The decision of the judge was to the contrary, and there is no basis upon which that decision can be challenged. An interpretation of section 117 which imposed on health authorities absolute duties which they would not necessarily be able to perform would be manifestly unreasonable." European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 - Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 117(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte X Gazette, 22 February 2001 22 Feb 2001 CA Immigration, Health, Human Rights The applicant had entered the UK without leave, and then been detained for mental illness. The Secretary ordered him to be removed. He claimed that there was no power to remove him whilst the detention order was current, and that the order infringed his human rights. Held: The later Act had not revoked the earlier, and the Secretary could act under either and without infringing his human rights, and he had no duty to give exceptional leave to remain. Immigration Act 1971 2(1), 30 - Mental Health Act 1983 86 - Human Rights Act 1998 3 Â Greenfield -v- Secretary of State for Home Department Times, 06 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 129; [2001] 1 WLR 1731 22 Feb 2001 Admn Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Prisons, Human Rights Disciplinary proceedings within a prison were not criminal charges so as to bring into play the provisions of the Human Rights Act, even though they could result in an extension of the time which would be served by the prisoner. Such proceedings would not carry with them the stigma of a full criminal conviction, and it is necessary to ensure consistency throughout the convention countries as to the application of article 6.1. The risk of serving additional days followed from the original deprivation of liberty. Criminal Justice Act 1991 42(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Szeloch -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 95; 33079/96; [2001] ECHR 95 22 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Greenfield -v- Secretary of State for Home Department Times, 06 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 129; [2001] 1 WLR 1731 22 Feb 2001 Admn Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Prisons, Human Rights Disciplinary proceedings within a prison were not criminal charges so as to bring into play the provisions of the Human Rights Act, even though they could result in an extension of the time which would be served by the prisoner. Such proceedings would not carry with them the stigma of a full criminal conviction, and it is necessary to ensure consistency throughout the convention countries as to the application of article 6.1. The risk of serving additional days followed from the original deprivation of liberty. Criminal Justice Act 1991 42(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kurzac -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 94; 31382/96; [2001] ECHR 94; [2011] ECHR 622 22 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Anscomb -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions Gazette, 22 February 2001 22 Feb 2001 QBD Planning, Human Rights The claimant sought to object to an inspector's decision to allow erection of a telecommunications mast. The failure of the inspector to consider potential health risks was not open to criticism because the claimant's papers had made no reference to such risks. A technical report which might have been considered had not been submitted, and the claimant's objection on human rights grounds failed inter alia on the grounds that the decision had been issued before the Act came into effect. Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 7(1)(b) 22(4) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288 Â Gallagher -v- Castle Vale Action Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 944; (2001) 33 HLR 72 23 Feb 2001 CA Sedley LJ Housing, Human Rights The court emphasised the need not merely to identify the relevant factors that weigh in each direction when considering whether to make an order for possession in a nuisance case, but to explain clearly why it is or is not proportionate to interfere with a Convention right in order to address a pressing social need. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Visentin -c- Italie 44395/98; [2001] ECHR 137; [2001] ECHR 139 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Liberatore -c- Italie 44394/98; [2001] ECHR 122; [2001] ECHR 123 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ismihan Ozel Et Autres -c- Turquie 31963/96; [2001] ECHR 120; [2001] ECHR 121 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ilardi -c- Italie 47777/99; [2001] ECHR 119; [2001] ECHR 120 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M. S.R.L. -c- Italie 44406/98; [2001] ECHR 124; [2001] ECHR 125 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gianni -c- Italie 47773/99; [2001] ECHR 117; [2001] ECHR 118 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Michele Tedesco -c- Italie 44425/98; [2001] ECHR 128; [2001] ECHR 129 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giampietro -c- Italie 37170/97; [2001] ECHR 116; [2001] ECHR 117 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Galata Et Autres -c- Italie 35956/97; [2001] ECHR 115; [2001] ECHR 116 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.B. -c- Italie 44397/98; [2001] ECHR 114; [2001] ECHR 115 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ianniti Et Autres -c- Italie 44447/98; [2001] ECHR 118; [2001] ECHR 119 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Valentino -c- Italie 44398/98; [2001] ECHR 136; [2001] ECHR 138 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marchi -c- Italie 44443/98; [2001] ECHR 125; [2001] ECHR 126 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mauri -c- Italie 44420/98; [2001] ECHR 127; [2001] ECHR 128 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Traspadini -c- Italie 44439/98; [2001] ECHR 135; [2001] ECHR 137 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tagliabue -c- Italie 44417/98; [2001] ECHR 134; [2001] ECHR 136 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Milazzotto -c- Italie 35345/97; [2001] ECHR 129; [2001] ECHR 130 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R. -c- Belgique 33919/96; [2001] ECHR 130; [2001] ECHR 132 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Donnadieu -c- France 39066/97; [2001] ECHR 113; [2001] ECHR 114 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arivella -c- Italie 41805/98; [2001] ECHR 101; [2001] ECHR 101 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Santelli -c- France 40717/98; [2001] ECHR 132; [2001] ECHR 134 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marzinotto -c- Italie 44422/98; [2001] ECHR 126; [2001] ECHR 127 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alesiani Et 510 Autres -c- Italie 41806/98; [2001] ECHR 99; [2001] ECHR 99 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bennett -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No 2) Gazette, 29 March 2001; Times, 27 February 2001 27 Feb 2001 ChD Human Rights, VAT There was nothing to prevent the Commissioners withdrawing one assessment and replacing it with another even after an adjudication on the first by a tribunal, but they could not do this in such a way as to attempt to relitigate the issues determined. Value Added Tax Act 1994 73 - Human Rights Act 1998 Â Luca -v- Italy (2001) 36 EHRR 807; 33354/96; (2003) 36 EHRR 46; [2001] ECHR 124 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Palm, President, Thomassen, Jörundsson, Bîrsan, Casadevall, Zupancic, judges Human Rights, Criminal Practice The accused had been convicted. After exercising his right to silence, there were read to the court accounts of statements made by co-accused but without an opportunity for him to cross examine the witnesses. Held: Saunders had established the integral part of a fair trial played by the right of silence. The inability to cross examine a witness was in an infringement of his rights: "As the court has stated on a number of occasions . . it may prove necessary in certain circumstances to refer to depositions made during the investigative stage (in particular where the witness refuses to repeat his deposition in public owing to fears for his safety, a not infrequent occurrence in trials concerning Mafia-type organisations). If the defendant has been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the depositions, either when made or at a later stage, their admission in evidence will not in itself contravene Article 6.1 and 3(d). The corollary of that, however, is that where the conviction is both solely or to a decisive degree based on depositions that had been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ecer, Zeyrek -v- Turkey 29295/95 ; 29363/95 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 7-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award Â Jerusalem -v- Austria 26958/95; 37 EHRR 25; [2001] ECHR 122; (2003) 37 EHRR 25 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Politicians "… inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large". Nevertheless, private individuals too will lay themselves open to such scrutiny if they voluntarily enter the arena of public debate, and then need to show "… a higher degree of tolerance to criticism when opponents consider their aims and means employed in that debate". 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cicek -v- Turkey 25704/94; [2001] ECHR 108 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the applicant [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Alden; Regina -v- Wright Times, 27 February 2001 27 Feb 2001 CACD Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights The human rights legislation, and in particular article 7, implied nothing to change the basis of sentencing for the offence of buggery. The defendants could not assert that the levels of sentencing had increased between the time when the offences had taken place and the time when they were sentenced. R v Willis remained good guidance. Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same -v- Same, ex parte Taylor Times, 27 February 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001 27 Feb 2001 QBD Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human Rights legislation applied. The issues he considered were wider than those involved in the strict sentencing process. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Sbrojavacca-Pietrobon -c- Italie 44419/98; [2001] ECHR 133 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â W.I.E. S.N.C. -c- Italie 44445/98; [2001] ECHR 138; [2001] ECHR 140 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Berlani -c- Italie 44435/98; [2001] ECHR 103; [2001] ECHR 103 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adriani -c- Italie 46515/99; [2001] ECHR 98; [2001] ECHR 98 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cultraro -c- Italie 45880/99; [2001] ECHR 112; [2001] ECHR 113 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alpay -c- Turquie 30947/96; [2001] ECHR 100; [2001] ECHR 100 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beluzzi Et Autres -c- Italie 44431/98; [2001] ECHR 102; [2001] ECHR 102 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bevilacqua -c- Italie 44442/98; [2001] ECHR 104 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bocca -c- Italie 44437/98; [2001] ECHR 105; [2001] ECHR 105 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Buffalo S.R.L. -c- Italie 44436/98; [2001] ECHR 106; [2001] ECHR 106 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cases Of Ecer And Zeyrek -v- Turkey 29295/95; [2001] ECHR 107 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Ciotta -c- Italie 41804/98; [2001] ECHR 108; [2001] ECHR 109 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Comitini -c- Italie 41811/98; [2001] ECHR 109; [2001] ECHR 110 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Conti -c- Italie 47774/99; [2001] ECHR 110; [2001] ECHR 111 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cornaglia -c- Italie 44385/98; [2001] ECHR 111; [2001] ECHR 112 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Abdouni -c- France 37838/97; [2001] ECHR 96; [2001] ECHR 96 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salzano -c- Italie 44404/98; [2001] ECHR 131; [2001] ECHR 133 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adoud And Bosoni -v- France 34595/97; [2001] ECHR 97; 35237/97 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Cases Of Ecer And Zeyrek -v- Turkey 29363/95; [2001] ECHR 107; 29295/95 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pettirossi -v- Italy 44380/98; [2001] ECHR 131 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Sbrojavacca-Pietrobon -v- Italy 44419/98; [2001] ECHR 135 27 Feb 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pasquale De Simone -c- Italie 42520/98; [2001] ECHR 185; [2001] ECHR 188 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â P.B. -c- Italie 44468/98; [2001] ECHR 183; [2001] ECHR 186 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Orlandi -c- Italie 44943/98; [2001] ECHR 182; [2001] ECHR 185 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â O.P. -c- Italie 44494/98; [2001] ECHR 181; [2001] ECHR 184 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Murgia -c- Italie 44490/98; [2001] ECHR 180; [2001] ECHR 183 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Morelli Et Nerattini -c- Italie 46973/99; [2001] ECHR 179; [2001] ECHR 182 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Massaro -c- Italie 46966/99; [2001] ECHR 178; [2001] ECHR 181 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Patane -c- Italie 29898/96; [2001] ECHR 186; [2001] ECHR 189 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mari Et Mangini -c- Italie 44517/98; [2001] ECHR 176; [2001] ECHR 179 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Risola -c- Italie 46974/99; [2001] ECHR 191; [2001] ECHR 194 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcotrigiano -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 47783/99; [2001] ECHR 175; [2001] ECHR 178 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcolongo -c- Italie 46957/99; [2001] ECHR 174; [2001] ECHR 177 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mangascia -c- Italie 41206/98; [2001] ECHR 173; [2001] ECHR 176 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maletti -c- Italie 46961/99; [2001] ECHR 172; [2001] ECHR 175 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Martinetti Et Autres -c- Italie 47784/99; [2001] ECHR 177; [2001] ECHR 180 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sonego -c- Italie 44491/98; [2001] ECHR 197; [2001] ECHR 200 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vecchi Et Autres -c- Italie 44488/98; [2001] ECHR 204; [2001] ECHR 207 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Valerio Santoro -c- Italie 44466/98; [2001] ECHR 203; [2001] ECHR 206 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Valeria Rossi -c- Italie 44472/98; [2001] ECHR 202; [2001] ECHR 205 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vaccarisi -c- Italie 46977/99; [2001] ECHR 201; [2001] ECHR 204 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Trimboli -c- Italie 46960/99; [2001] ECHR 200; [2001] ECHR 203 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Procopio -c- Italie 46969/99; [2001] ECHR 188; [2001] ECHR 191 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spada -c- Italie 44470/98; [2001] ECHR 198; [2001] ECHR 201 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Procaccianti -c- Italie 46967/99; [2001] ECHR 187; [2001] ECHR 190 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Shipcare S.R.L. -c- Italie 44505/98; [2001] ECHR 196; [2001] ECHR 199 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Santorum -c- Italie 47780/99; [2001] ECHR 194; [2001] ECHR 197 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rossana Ferrari -c- Italie 44527/98; [2001] ECHR 193; [2001] ECHR 196 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â GV -v- Italie 47786/99; [2001] ECHR 164; [2001] ECHR 167 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rigutto -c- Italie 44465/98; [2001] ECHR 190; [2001] ECHR 193 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lucas International S.R.L. -c- Italie 46962/99; [2001] ECHR 170; [2001] ECHR 173 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tebaldi -c- Italie 44486/98; [2001] ECHR 199; [2001] ECHR 202 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alpites S.P.A. -c- Italie 46964/99; [2001] ECHR 140; [2001] ECHR 143 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gelgec Et Ozdemir -c- Turquie 27700/95; [2001] ECHR 166; [2001] ECHR 169 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C.L. -c- Italie 46980/99; [2001] ECHR 147; [2001] ECHR 150 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bonelli -c- Italie 44457/98; [2001] ECHR 146; [2001] ECHR 149 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Berktay -c- Turquie 22493/93; [2001] ECHR 145; [2001] ECHR 148 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bellagamba -c- Italie 44511/98; [2001] ECHR 144; [2001] ECHR 147 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Circo Et Autres -c- Italie 46959/99; [2001] ECHR 150; [2001] ECHR 153 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Angemi -c- Italie 47785/99; [2001] ECHR 141; [2001] ECHR 144 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Citterio Et Angiolillo -c- Italie 44504/98; [2001] ECHR 151; [2001] ECHR 154 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A.C. -c- Italie 44481/98; [2001] ECHR 139; [2001] ECHR 141 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Visintin -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 207; 43199/98; [2001] ECHR 210 1 Mar 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ada Maccari -v- Italy 44464/98; [2001] ECHR 142 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Roberto Sacchi -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 192; 44461/98; [2001] ECHR 195 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sborchia And Tognarini -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 195; 33116/96; [2001] ECHR 198 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Paris -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 184; 33602/96; [2001] ECHR 187 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ardemagni Et Ripa -c- Italie 46958/99; [2001] ECHR 142; [2001] ECHR 145 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F.T. -c- Italie 46971/99; [2001] ECHR 159; [2001] ECHR 162 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Venturini -c- Italie 44534/98; [2001] ECHR 206; [2001] ECHR 209 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Galie -c- Italie 46963/99; [2001] ECHR 165; [2001] ECHR 168 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zanasi -c- Italie 44462/98; [2001] ECHR 208; [2001] ECHR 211 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Franceschetti Et Odorico -c- Italie 46965/99; [2001] ECHR 163; [2001] ECHR 166 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesca Mastrantonio -c- Italie 46979/99; [2001] ECHR 162; [2001] ECHR 165 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciacci -c- Italie 38878/97; [2001] ECHR 149; [2001] ECHR 152 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Falconi -c- Italie 46968/99; [2001] ECHR 160; [2001] ECHR 163 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L.G.S. S.P.A. -c- Italie (No. 2) 39487/98; [2001] ECHR 169; [2001] ECHR 172 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F.P. -c- Italie 46978/99; [2001] ECHR 158; [2001] ECHR 161 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Motoli Et Autres -c- Italie 46976/99; [2001] ECHR 157; [2001] ECHR 160 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Gabriele -c- Italie 46975/99; [2001] ECHR 156; [2001] ECHR 159 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Del Giudice -c- Italie 42351/98; [2001] ECHR 155; [2001] ECHR 158 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cova -c- Italie 44500/98; [2001] ECHR 153; [2001] ECHR 156 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ciuffetti -c- Italie 47779/99; [2001] ECHR 152; [2001] ECHR 155 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Farinosi Et Barattelli -c- Italie 47781/99; [2001] ECHR 161; [2001] ECHR 164 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â B -v- Italy 32465/96; [2001] ECHR 143; [2001] ECHR 146 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dallos -v- Hungary [2001] ECHR 154; 29082/95; [2001] ECHR 157 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Preliminary objection dismissed (six months); No violation of Art. 6 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Castiglioni -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 148; 30877/96; [2001] ECHR 151 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vecchini -c- Italie 44528/98; [2001] ECHR 205; [2001] ECHR 208 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gimigliano -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 167; 30918/96; [2001] ECHR 170 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I Fr -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 168; 31930/96; [2001] ECHR 171 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R M -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 189; 32403/96; [2001] ECHR 192 1 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jakola -v- Sweden 32531/96; [2001] ECHR 212; [2001] ECHR 215 6 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cavusoglu -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 209; 32983/96; [2001] ECHR 212 6 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dougoz -v- Greece 40907/98; ECHR 2001-II; [2001] ECHR 210; [2001] ECHR 213; [2009] ECHR 2248 6 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award. When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant. European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lambeth London Borough Council -v- Howard [2001] 33 HLR 636; [2001] EWCA Civ 468 6 Mar 2001 CA Sedley LJ Human Rights, Housing Any attempt to evict a person, whether directly or indirectly or by process of law, from his or her home is on the face of it a derogation from the respect to which the home is prima facie entitled. Courts should be careful fully to explain any weighing of proportionality in a human rights case where social need was used to justify interference with a right. In this case "the shadow of the past was too heavy" to be ignored and prevent an outright possesion order. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mehdi Zana -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 213; 29851/96; [2001] ECHR 216 6 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hilal -v- The United Kingdom 45276/99; (2001) 33 EHRR 31; [2001] ECHR 211; [2001] ECHR 214; [2010] ECHR 1860 6 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Shansal -v- Al-Kishtaini Times, 08 March 2001 8 Mar 2001 CA International, Commercial, Human Rights The restrictions imposed on trading with residents of Iraq continued to apply even if the person involved left Iraq. A simple change of address could not be allowed to be used to circumvent important international provisions. Provisions existed for assessing such residence. Even so, surprising effects might follow. In this case, the former resident would not be allowed to enforce what was an illegal contract. A claimant could not recover where to do so he would have to rely upon his own illegal act. This fell within the exemption allowed under human rights law as being in the public interest and subject to law. Control of Gold, Securities, Payments and Credits (Republic of Iraq) Directions 1990 (1990 No 1616) - Human Rights Act 1998 Â Â Pinto De Oliveira -v- Portugal; ECHR 8-Mar-2001 - 39297/98; [2001] ECHR 219; [2001] ECHR 222 Â Guglielmi -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 216; 32659/96; [2001] ECHR 219 8 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fanelli -c- Italie 44361/98; [2001] ECHR 215; [2001] ECHR 218 8 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â B.S. -c- Italie 44364/98; [2001] ECHR 214; [2001] ECHR 217 8 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I.O. -c- Suisse 21529/93; [2001] ECHR 217; [2001] ECHR 220 8 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Minnema -c- Portugal 39300/98; [2001] ECHR 218; [2001] ECHR 221 8 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gary Follen -v- Her Majesty's Advocate DP No. 1 of 2000; [2001] UKPC D2 8 Mar 2001 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett Scotland, Crime, Human Rights PC High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) The defendant said that a trial under the section infringed his right to a fair trial, because of a ten month delay by the prosecutor. On arrest he had been recalled to serve the remainer of a sentence, and served longer than the 110 day maximum before his case came to trial. Held: Upon re-arrest he was serving the time under earlier sentence. The defendant had raised the devolution issue only at this stage. The Committee had itself no original jurisdiction to hear such a complaint. Following Montgomery, it had to be heard first in the High Court of Justiciary. In this case, the court refusing leave to appeal would have avoided much difficulty by giving reasons for its refusal. Where the Appeal Court refused leave without giving reasons, the Board might find it difficult to appreciate that a petition for special leave to appeal was without merit from the information given on paper by the petitioner. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yang Chun Jin Alias Yang Xiaolin -v- Hungary [2001] ECHR 220; 58073/00; [2001] ECHR 223 8 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (McCann and Others) -v- Manchester Crown Court; CA 9-Mar-2001 - Times, 09 March 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1084; [2001] EWCA Civ 281 Â Observer Publications Limited -v- Campbell 'Mickey' Matthew The Commissioner of Police and The Attorney General [2001] UKPC 11; 10 BHRC 252 19 Mar 2001 PC Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Scott of Foscote, Sir Patrick Russell, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith Commonwealth, Constitutional, Media, Human Rights PC (Antigua and Barbuda) The claimant complained of the delay by the respondents in processing their request for a licence to run a radio station. It appealed refusal of constitutional redress and thta its right of free speech had been infringed. The only existing radio stations were a state owned on and one owned by the prime minister's family. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â Bouchet -c- France 33591/96; [2001] ECHR 221; [2001] ECHR 224 20 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stroek -v- Belgium 36467/97; [2001] ECHR 227; 36449/97 20 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Goedhart -c- Belgique 34989/97; [2001] ECHR 222; [2001] ECHR 225 20 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Koksal -v- The Netherlands; ECHR 20-Mar-2001 - [2001] ECHR 223; 31725/96; [2001] ECHR 226; (2000) 30 EHRR 55 Â Â Telfner -v- Austria; ECHR 20-Mar-2001 - [2001] ECHR 225; 33501/96; [2001] ECHR 228 Â De Keyser Limited -v- Wilson EAT/1438/00; [2001] IRLR 324; [2001] UKEAT 1438_00_2003 20 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Employment, Human Rights The claimant appealed against an order striking out her claim. Held: The right to respect for private life is qualified by the right for both parties to have a just trial of the issues between them; and it has to be borne in mind that it was the claimant who invoked the right to such a trial by bringing the claim. Lindsay J discussed the calling of expert evidence in an Employment Tribnal claim: "Careful thought needs to be given before any party embarks upon instructions for expert evidence. It by no means follows that because a party wishes such evidence to be admitted that it will be . . A prudent party will first explore with the employment tribunal at a directions hearing or in correspondence whether, in principle, expert evidence is likely to be acceptable." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Stroek -c- Belgique 36449/97; [2001] ECHR 224 20 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- A (Joinder of Appropriate Minister) Times, 21 March 2001 21 Mar 2001 HL Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice, Human Rights An appeal was to be heard by the committee in which it was expected that a declaration of incompatibility would be considered in respect of legislation restricting the raising by a defendant on a charge of rape of the complainant's sexual history. Though the Crown would conduct the appeal, the Home Secretary, whose Act was in issue sought to be joined. The case was still in anticipation of the trial, and the rules anticipated notice being served when such a declaration was considered. Nevertheless, the proposal would improve efficiency, and the Director of Public Prosecutions served a different function in the appeal. The Home Secretary could be allowed to be joined at this stage. Human Rights Act 1998 5 41 - Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2036) - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41 1 Citers Â Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Wilson Times, 21 March 2001; Gazette, 03 May 2001 21 Mar 2001 QBD Road Traffic, Human Rights The use of an admission obtained under compulsion that a driver was the driver, at the time when a car was being driven so as to commit an offence, was not an infringement of the defendant's human rights, and there was no requirement of a notice that the admission obtained might be used in evidence. Road Traffic Act 1988 172(2)(b) Â K.-H. W. v. Germany 37201/97; [2001] ECHR 229 22 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Streletz, Kessler And Krenz -v- Germany 34044/96; 35532/97; [2001] ECHR 227 22 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 7-1; No violation of Art. 14+7 34044/96; 35532/97; 44801/98. [ Bailii ] Â Streletz, Kessler And Krenz -v- Germany 44801/98; [2001] ECHR 230; 34044/96; 35532/97 22 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â K -H W -v- Germany [2001] ECHR 226; 37201/97 22 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 7-1; No violation of Art. 14+7 [ Bailii ] Â Scanfuture UK Ltd, J M Link -v- K Bird J M Link C J Bennett Secretary of State for Department of Trade, Secretary of State for Department of Trade Times, 26 April 2001; EAT/980/99; EAT/1353/99; [2001] IRLR 416 23 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Human Rights, Employment The new system of appointment of lay members of employment tribunals is compliant with the right to a fair trial before an independent tribunal, particularly now where the Secretary of State had an interest in the proceedings. The Secretary had had power to select and remove the lay members of the tribunal, and the system could therefore give rise to a reasonable perception of unfairness. The decision made under the old rules had to be set aside. The new system provided sufficient guarantees because the lay members were now appointed for a three year period after open competition, and any removal would now involve an element of judicial involvement. EAT Transfer of Undertakings - Transfer European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 1 Citers Â In Re B (Minor: Adoption) Times, 23 March 2001 23 Mar 2001 CA Adoption, Human Rights Where in adoption proceedings, the experts advising the court including the guardian ad litem, and an experienced child psychiatrist had indicated opposition to the proposed adoption, it could not be said that the natural father was unreasonable to oppose the adoption. Since it could not proceed without this consent, or his opposition disposed of as unreasonable, the adoption could not proceed. The court had given insufficient weight to the father's human right to respect for family life. Â Kadri -c- France 41715/98; [2001] ECHR 229; [2001] ECHR 232 27 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â KervoÃŠLen -c- France 35585/97; [2001] ECHR 230; [2001] ECHR 233 27 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Joly -c- France 43713/98; [2001] ECHR 228; [2001] ECHR 231 27 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sutherland -v- United Kingdom Times, 13 April 2001; 25186/94; [2001] ECHR 231; [2001] ECHR 234 27 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Crime A case before the court was struck out at the request of both parties after the coming into force, in January 2001, of the Act which equalised the ages of consent for homosexual sexual acts and heterosexual sexual acts to 16. There was no longer any risk of discriminatory prosecutions. Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (solution of the matter) Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (on the application of H) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region; CA 28-Mar-2001 - Times, 02 April 2001; Gazette, 24 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 415; [2002] QB 1 Â Rocchi -c- Italie 44375/98; [2001] ECHR 236; [2001] ECHR 239 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Germano -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 233; 31379/96; [2001] ECHR 236 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Haralambidis And Others -v- Greece 36706/97; [2001] ECHR 234; [2001] ECHR 237 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Lack of jurisdiction) Preliminary objection allowed (six months period) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zohiou -v- Greece [2001] ECHR 238; 40428/98; [2001] ECHR 241 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D N -v- Switzerland 27154/95; [2001] ECHR 232; [2001] ECHR 235 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Thoma -v- Luxembourg 38432/97; [2001] ECHR 237; (2003) 36 EHRR 21; [2001] ECHR 240 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Defamation Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award The Court was concerned with a radio report on corruption, in the context of a re-afforestation, and reference was made to an "authoritative source" which said that there was only one person who was incorruptible. Actions for libel were brought by persons claiming to be identifiable as the subject of corruption accusations. The Court, on those facts, took the view that the journalist had in fact adopted, at any rate partly, the content of the quotation in question. Despite this, it was held that the award of nominal damages against the journalist had constituted a breach of Article 10. It was not appropriate for the law to insist that he should formally distance himself from the content of the quotation, at least in circumstances where it was clear to the reader that the offending passage was a quotation from someone else. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kosmopolis S.A. -c- Grece 40434/98; [2001] ECHR 235; [2001] ECHR 238 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Attorney-General's Reference (No 7 of 2000) Times, 12 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1879; [2001] 2 CAR 19; [2001] EWCA Crim 888; [2001] BPIR 953; [2001] 2 Cr App R 19; [2001] 2 CAR 19; [2001] HRLR 41; [2001] Crim LR 736 29 Mar 2001 CACD Rose LJ VP, Rougier LJ, McCombe LJ Criminal Evidence, Human Rights The defendant had been convicted of offences under the Insolvency Act. Evidence of his gambling was found in cheque stubs, bank statements, returned cheques and a betting file containing loose gambling statements by way of computer print outs produced by Ladbrokes and a bookmaker's schedule of gambling transactions. The bankrupt had not contributed himself to any of these documents. He was required to produce these documents to the Official Receiver under the provisions of section 291 of the Insolvency Act which carried with it the sanction of proceedings for contempt of court punishable with up to two years imprisonment under sub-section (6) of that section. He handed them over. The question was, whether the admission of such documents was unfair, when they did not, themselves, contain statements obtained from the defendant under compulsion. Held: The prosecutor's appeal against an order allowing the claim for privilege succeeded. The privilege against self-incrimination was not absolute, and assorted statutes had infringed that right. The Saunders case at the ECHR had distinguished between statements obtained from the accused, and documents, and other material, which were independent of the statement. That distinction was appropriate, and the use of such documents did not infringe the defendant's right to a fair trial. Insolvency Act 1986 291 (1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sieminska -v- Poland 37602/97 29 Mar 2001 ECHR Human Rights The applicant's husband died in hospital, but she later complained that the ambulance had not been equipped with the necessary resuscitation devices. Under Polish law she had a right to appeal against decisions of the prosecuting authorities not to bring criminal proceedings, and to bring a civil action or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the medical practitioners concerned. Held: Her application was inadmissible. There was no indication that there had been any failure to provide a mechanism whereby the criminal, disciplinary or civil responsibility of persons who might be held answerable could be established. Article 2 obliges the State not only to refrain from 'intentionally' causing death but also to take adequate measures to protect life. "The Court considers that Article 2 of the Convention imposes that, even in cases such as the present one, in which the deprivation of life was not the result of the use of lethal force by agents of the State but where agents of the State potentially bear responsibility for loss of life, the events in question should be subject to an effective investigation or scrutiny which enables the facts to become known to the public and in particular to the relatives of any victims …. In particular, the positive obligations a State has to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention include the requirement for hospitals to have regulations for the protection of their patients' lives and also 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 procedural element contained in Article 2 of the Convention imposes the minimum requirement that where a State or its agents potentially bear responsibility for loss of life, the events in question should be subject to an effective investigation or scrutiny which enables the facts to become known to the public, and in particular to the relatives of any victims …." European Convention on Human Rights 2 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Regina -v- Williams Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 11 May 2001 30 Mar 2001 CACD Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights A breach of article 6.2 of the Convention in a trial need not automatically lead to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe. The judge had failed to direct the jury to the effect that the offence of robbery required proof of the element of dishonesty. The court was entitled to conclude that that would not have made any difference to the verdict. There need be no difference on this question when the breach was of article 6.2 rather than 6.1. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 6.2 Â Â Regina (on the application of Pamplin) -v- Law Society; Admn 30-Mar-2001 - [2001] All ER (D) 204 Â Regina -v- Williams Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 11 May 2001 30 Mar 2001 CACD Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights A breach of article 6.2 of the Convention in a trial need not automatically lead to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe. The judge had failed to direct the jury to the effect that the offence of robbery required proof of the element of dishonesty. The court was entitled to conclude that that would not have made any difference to the verdict. There need be no difference on this question when the breach was of article 6.2 rather than 6.1. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 6.2 Â Â Regina and Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Professional Contractors Group Ltd; Ruud Van Zundert and Square Mile Projects Ltd; Admn 2-Apr-2001 - Times, 05 April 2001; Gazette, 17 May 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 236 Â Keenan -v- The United Kingdom Times, 18 April 2001; 27229/95; (2001) 33 EHRR 38; [2001] ECHR 239; [2001] 10 BHRC 319; [2001] ECHR 242; (2001) 33 EHRR 913; [2011] ECHR 2266 3 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Coroners A young prisoner was known to be at risk of suicide, but nevertheless was not provided with adequate specialist medical supervision. He was punished for an offence, by way of segregation which further put him at risk. Held. Inhuman and degrading treatment had to achieve a certain standard of seriousness before it became an infringement, but after that might be relative to the circumstances. The court must also see whether an intention existed to debase and humiliate the person subjected to the treatment. Despite the known risk, and identifiably increased risks, there were no medical notes for a period. The offence itself may have followed an unconsidered change in his medication. His article 3 rights had been infringed. Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The "inquest, which did not permit the determination of issues of liability, did not furnish the applicant with the possibility of establishing the responsibility of the prison authorities or obtaining damages." and "Given the fundamental importance of the right to the protection of life, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the deprivation of life." Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award European Convention on Human Rights Art 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Mellor Gazette, 01 June 2001; Times, 01 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 472; [2002] QB 13; [2001] 3 WLR 533; [2001] 2 FLR 1158; (2001) 59 BMLR 1; [2001] 2 FCR 153; [2001] HRLR 38; [2001] Fam Law 736 4 Apr 2001 CA Lord Phillips MR, Peter Gibson LJ, Latham LJ Human Rights, Administrative, Family, Prisons A prisoner had no right to facilities to artificially inseminate his wife. In this case, he might not be released for several years, and there were no medical reasons advanced for finding exceptional reasons under the Department policy. Provided the interference with the prisoner's rights was proportionate, a refusal to provide the additional facilities which would be necessary was not an infringement of article 12, and nor was the policy unlawful or irrational. Lord Phillips MR said: "Penal sanctions are imposed, in part, to exact retribution for wrongdoing. If there were no system of penal sanctions, members of the public would be likely to take the law into their own hands. In my judgment it is legitimate to have regard to public perception when considering the characteristic of a penal system." European Convention on Human Rights Art 12 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Tieghi -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 244; 33253/96; [2001] ECHR 247 5 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pavese -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 243; 32388/96; [2001] ECHR 246 5 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M.L. Et Autres -c- Italie 53705/00; [2001] ECHR 242; [2001] ECHR 245 5 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H B -v- Switzerland 26899/95; [2001] ECHR 241; [2001] ECHR 244 5 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-2; Violation of Art. 5-3; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sayania -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal: Same -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 390 5 Apr 2001 Admn Immigration, Human Rights The claimant sought to quash the IAT refusal of leave to appeal a Special Adjudicator's decision, which had found no exceptional compassionate circumstances. She was a British Overseas Citizen seeking to be united with her family. She asserted that the test applied was too stringent in the light of the Human Rights Act. Held: The cases indicated no inconsistency between the policies applied and the applicant's article 8 rights. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â De Leonardis -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 240; 33529/96; [2001] ECHR 243 5 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â In Re M (A Child: Secure Accommodation Order); CA 5-Apr-2001 - Times, 05 April 2001 Â Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, In the Matter of [2001] NIEHC 35 6 Apr 2001 NIHC Northern Ireland, Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo; CACD 6-Apr-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 1025/6 Â Tanli -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 267; 26129/95; [2001] ECHR 270 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the death; Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the investigation; No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 5; Violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 18; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hamit Yilmaz -c- Turquie 19310/92; [2001] ECHR 251; [2001] ECHR 254 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hasan Ozturk -c- Turquie 19290/92; [2001] ECHR 252; [2001] ECHR 255 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ibrahim Tasdemir -c- Turquie 19304/92; [2001] ECHR 253; [2001] ECHR 256 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kamil Ozturk -c- Turquie 19291/92; [2001] ECHR 254; [2001] ECHR 257 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mahir Tasdemir Et Autres -c- Turquie 19305/92; [2001] ECHR 255; [2001] ECHR 258 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19292/92; [2001] ECHR 256; [2001] ECHR 259 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Tasdemir -c- Turquie 19306/92; [2001] ECHR 257; [2001] ECHR 260 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Chahed -c- France 45976/99; [2001] ECHR 249; [2001] ECHR 252 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mustafa Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19294/92; [2001] ECHR 259; [2001] ECHR 262 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Celal Et Keziban Sen -c- Turquie 19303/92; [2001] ECHR 248; [2001] ECHR 251 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â SÃœLÃœN -c- Turquie 19300/92; [2001] ECHR 260; [2001] ECHR 263 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sablon -c- Belgique 36445/97; [2001] ECHR 261; [2001] ECHR 264 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sabri Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19295/92; [2001] ECHR 262; [2001] ECHR 265 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sahin Et Autres -c- Turquie 19301/92; [2001] ECHR 263; [2001] ECHR 266 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sancar -c- Turquie 19297/92; [2001] ECHR 264; [2001] ECHR 267 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sari -c- Turquie 19298/92; [2001] ECHR 265; [2001] ECHR 268 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sezer -c- Turquie 19299/92; [2001] ECHR 266; [2001] ECHR 269 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â YÃœKsel -c- Turquie 19311/92; [2001] ECHR 268; [2001] ECHR 271 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yunus Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19296/92; [2001] ECHR 269; [2001] ECHR 272 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zekeriya Tasdemir -c- Turquie 19307/92; [2001] ECHR 270; [2001] ECHR 273 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zekiye Yilmaz -c- Turquie 19309/92; [2001] ECHR 272; [2001] ECHR 275 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zengin Et Autres -c- Turquie 19312/92; [2001] ECHR 273; [2001] ECHR 276 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Muhsin Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19293/92; [2001] ECHR 258; [2001] ECHR 261 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zekeriya Yilmaz -v- Turkey 19308/92; [2001] ECHR 271; [2001] ECHR 274 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aziz Sen Et Autres -c- Turquie 19302/92; [2001] ECHR 247; [2001] ECHR 250 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ali Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19289/92; [2001] ECHR 245; [2001] ECHR 248 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Westminster City Council -v- National Asylum Support Service [2001] EWCA Civ 512; (2001) 33 HLR 83; (2001) 4 CCL Rep 143 10 Apr 2001 CA Immigration, Benefits, Local Government, Human Rights National Assistance Act 1948 21 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Marcus Ellis And Rodrigo Simms And Nathan Antonio Martin -v- The United Kingdom 46099/06; 46699/06; [2012] ECHR 813 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â GÃœNal -c- Turquie 19282/92; [2001] ECHR 250; [2001] ECHR 253 10 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Nasser -v- United Bank of Kuwait; CA 11-Apr-2001 - [2002] 1 All ER 401; [2002] 1 WLR 1868; [2001] EWCA Civ 556 Â Di Deco -c- Italie 44362/98; [2001] ECHR 276; [2001] ECHR 279 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferreira Da Silva -c- Portugal 41018/98; [2001] ECHR 277; [2001] ECHR 280 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferreira Martins -c- Portugal 39579/98; [2001] ECHR 278; [2001] ECHR 281 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Akin -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 274; 34688/97; [2001] ECHR 277 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stanciak -v- Slovakia [2001] ECHR 285; 40345/98; [2001] ECHR 288 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jardim Travassos Moura Gaspar -c- Portugal 41390/98; [2001] ECHR 279; [2001] ECHR 282 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â S A And D D L -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 283; 30973/96; [2001] ECHR 286 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Striking out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Logothetis -c- Grece 46352/99; [2001] ECHR 280; [2002] ECHR 420; [2001] ECHR 283; [2002] ECHR 424 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Silva Bras -c- Portugal 41128/98; [2001] ECHR 284; [2001] ECHR 287 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ribeiro Ferreira Ruah -c- Portugal 38327/97; [2001] ECHR 282 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Arvelakis -v- Greece [2001] ECHR 275; 41354/98; [2001] ECHR 278 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ribeiro Ferreira Ruah -v- Portugal 38329/97; [2001] ECHR 285; 38327/97 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Messochoritis -c- Grece 41867/98; [2001] ECHR 281; [2001] ECHR 284 12 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Smethurst Times, 13 April 2001; [2002] 1 Cr App R 50 13 Apr 2001 CACD Crime, Human Rights As regards the offence of making indecent photographs of children, any intention of the defendant was irrelevant as to whether the photographs themselves were indecent. The defendant said he had obtained the images without any indecent intent, but only because they had a high photographic quality. The situation was different from that which obtained on a question of indecent assault. The jury's conclusion that the images were indecent and of children under 16 was all that was required. Indecency was a subjective assessment. Once the photographs came into existence the harm might already be done. Article 10.2 covered this case, the offence was sufficiently certain, and the Act was compliant. Protection of Children Act 1978 1(1)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights 10.2 1 Citers Â Â Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst -v- Attorney-General; QBD 17-Apr-2001 - Times, 17 April 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 239 Â Â Regina (Pearson Martinez and Hirst) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others; Hirst -v- Attorney-General; QBD 17-Apr-2001 - Times, 17 April 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 239 Â Regina -v- Parole Board, ex parte MacNeil Times, 18 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 448 18 Apr 2001 CA Peter Gibson LJ, Lord Phillips MR Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two years. The earlier case had expressly stated that no maximum interval was being set. Gibson LJ "The difficulty . . . in relying on Oldham is that the European Court expressly stated . . . that it was not going to give a ruling as to the maximum permissible period between reviews to consider a prisoner's release. It recognised that a "reasonable period" will depend on the facts of the particular case. . . . The fact that two years constituted too long a period in Oldham does not necessarily entail that a two-year period in the present case was disproportionately long." Lord Phillips MR: "This is a case which has turned upon its particular facts, as the Strasbourg court has recognised is appropriate. No general proposition can be based upon it to the effect that a two year interval will satisfy the requirement derived from Article 5 (4) of the Human Rights Convention that a person deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed at reasonable intervals." European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 1 Cites 1 Citers Â M P And Others -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 291; 32664/96; [2001] ECHR 294 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gefima Immobiliare S R L -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 289; 33943/96; [2001] ECHR 292 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Capcikova -v- Slovakia [2001] ECHR 287; 38853/97; [2001] ECHR 290 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maronek -v- Slovakia [2001] ECHR 292; 32686/96; [2001] ECHR 295 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tarducci -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 294; 31460/96; [2001] ECHR 297 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D L And M A -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 288; 31926/96; [2001] ECHR 291 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L M G -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 290; 32655/96; [2001] ECHR 293 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Peers -v- Greece 28524/95; ECHR 2001-III; [2001] ECHR 293; [2001] ECHR 296; [2009] ECHR 2249 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor further to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3. Conditions of detention may sometimes amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Banosova -v- Slovakia [2001] ECHR 286; 38798/97; [2001] ECHR 289 19 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guerresi -c- Italie 32646/96; [2001] ECHR 296; [2001] ECHR 299 24 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â B -v The United Kingdom; P -v- The United Kingdom Times, 15 May 2001; 36337/97; 35974/97; (2002) 34 EHRR 529; [2001] 2 FLR 261; [2001] ECHR 295; [1999] ECHR 179 24 Apr 2001 ECHR Children, Human Rights, Administrative The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were affected, the rules allowed application for their admission to the proceedings, and leave could also be sought to disclose the results of the proceedings to named parties. Custody and contact disputes were prime examples of situations where exclusion of the press and public could be justified to protect the interests of the child and parties to the case: "such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment … to pronounce the judgment in public would, to a large extent, frustrate these aims." Parties were expected to be candid and open about events, and that would be threatened if proceedings were held in public. European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carmela Guarino -c- Italie 41275/98; [2001] ECHR 300; [2001] ECHR 303 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Donato And Others -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 302; 41513/98; [2001] ECHR 305 26 Apr 2001 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 F C -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 303; 40457/98; [2001] ECHR 306 26 Apr 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferrarin -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 304; 34203/96; [2001] ECHR 307 26 Apr 2001 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 Tommaso Palumbo -v- Italy 45264/99; [2001] ECHR 318; [2001] ECHR 321 26 Apr 2001 ECHR C.L. Rozakis, President, B. Conforti, G. Bonello, V. Strážnická, P. Lorenzen, M. Fischbach, M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska Human Rights, Crime Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings On 1 April 1992, the applicant, charged with sale of drugs (detenzione di sostanze stupefacienti a fine di spaccio), was arrested in Benevento but then released. After many adjournments, in a judgment of 9 February 1998, he was acquitted. This decision became final on 27 March 1998. He complained that he had not been given a timely trial. According to the applicant, the overall duration of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government rejected this allegation, on the ground that several hearings were postponed either by reason of lawyers’ strikes, or because of the political elections, or finally because of the absence of some witnesses. They furthermore relied on the excessive workload of the Benevento District Court. Held: A delay in the criminal proceedings caused by a lawyers’ strike cannot be attributed to the State, whereas the period of time elapsed between the end of the strike and the new hearing is to be imputed to the conduct of the authorities. Having regard to the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case, the Court considered that an overall length of five years, eleven months and twenty-six days for one degree of jurisdiction is excessive. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Icolaro -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 309; 45260/99; [2001] ECHR 312 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Schiappacasse -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 317; 43536/98; [2001] ECHR 320 26 Apr 2001 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 Arganese -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 297; 44970/98; [2001] ECHR 300 26 Apr 2001 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 Shansal -v- Al-Kishtaini Gazette, 26 April 2001 26 Apr 2001 CA International, Commercial, Human Rights The restrictions imposed on trading with residents of Iraq continued to apply even if the person involved left Iraq. A simple change of address could not be allowed to be used to circumvent important international provisions. Provisions existed for assessing such residence. Even so, surprising effects might follow. In this case, the former resident would not be allowed to enforce what was an illegal contract. A claimant could not recover where to do so he would have to rely upon his own illegal act. This fell within the exemption allowed under human rights law as being in the public interest and subject to law. Control of Gold, Securities, Payments and Credits (Republic of Iraq) Directions 1990 (1990 No 1616) - Human Rights Act 1998 Â Cancellieri -c- Italie 39997/98; [2001] ECHR 299; [2001] ECHR 302 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Aggiato -c- Italie 35207/97; [2001] ECHR 305; [2001] ECHR 308 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hababou -c- France 48167/99; [2001] ECHR 306; [2001] ECHR 309 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ialongo -c- Italie 40458/98; [2001] ECHR 307; [2001] ECHR 310 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iarrobino Et De Nisco -c- Italie 40662/98; [2001] ECHR 308; [2001] ECHR 311 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lemort -c- France 47631/99; [2001] ECHR 310; [2001] ECHR 313 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Matera -c- Italie 43635/98; [2001] ECHR 311; [2001] ECHR 314 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maurano -c- Italie 43350/98; [2001] ECHR 312; [2001] ECHR 315 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Motta -c- Italie (NÂ° 3) 47681/99; [2001] ECHR 314; [2001] ECHR 317 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rotellini Et Barnabei -c- Italie 40693/98; [2001] ECHR 315; [2001] ECHR 318 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â SG, SM Et PC -c- Italie 45480/99; [2001] ECHR 316; [2001] ECHR 319 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C.P. -c- Italie 44976/98; [2001] ECHR 301 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Davinelli -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 301; 39714/98; [2001] ECHR 304 26 Apr 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Securities and Futures Authority Limited Disciplinary Appeal Tribunal of Securities and Futures Authority Limited ex parte Bertrand Fleurose Times, 15 May 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 292 26 Apr 2001 Admn Financial Services, Human Rights, Administrative Those elements of Human Rights law which related to criminal charges could not be applied to disciplinary proceedings of the Securities and Futures Authority. Such proceedings are in their nature civil proceedings. Although a financial penalty was capable of being imposed, it could only be enforced as a civil debt. The applicant had the normal private rights of any member of an association. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd -v- Donoghue; CA 27-Apr-2001 - Gazette, 11 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; Times, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 595; [2002] QB 48; [2001] All ER (D) 210 Â Â Wilson -v- First County Trust (2); CA 2-May-2001 - Times, 16 May 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2002] QB 74; [2001] EWCA Civ 633 Â Â Regina -v- Lichniak; Regina -v- Pyrah; CACD 2-May-2001 - Times, 16 May 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 294; [2001] 3 WLR 933; [2002] QB 296 Â J B -v- Switzerland 31827/96; [2001] ECHR 324 3 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another Gazette, 03 May 2001 3 May 2001 QBD Planning, Land, Human Rights Two supermarkets sought permission to develop neighbouring sites. The council preferred one, and set put to make compulsory purchase orders from the other to allow it to proceed. The second was later granted permission, and objected to the CPO. It was not necessary to give greater respect to the need to avoid Compulsory Purchase, and the need to support the preferred scheme was a compelling case in the public interest, so as to justify the making of the compulsory purchase order, which was confirmed. The test had not been significantly tightened by the Act. Human Rights Act 1998 Â Regina -v- Loveridge (William); Regina -v- Lee (Charles Sonny); Regina -v- Loveridge (Christine) Times, 03 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001 3 May 2001 CACD Criminal Evidence, Human Rights The police took secret videos of defendants whilst in the cells at the local Magistrates Court. The prosecution later sought to use the videos in identifying the defendants as participants in another crime. The filming was both unlawful under the Act, and an improper invasion of their privacy. The making of a video was included within the taking of a photograph under the Act. The filming was a breach of the defendants' article 8 human rights. Nevertheless, the infringement did not affect the fairness of the eventual proceedings, and accordingly the evidence was properly admitted, and the convictions stood. Criminal Justice Act 1925 41 - Human Rights Act 1998 Â Kaysin And Others -v- Ukraine [2001] ECHR 321; 46144/99; [2001] ECHR 325 3 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (matter resolved) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C -v- Pologne 27918/95; [2001] ECHR 319; [2001] ECHR 322 3 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights False European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stefanov -v- Bulgaria [2001] ECHR 322; 32438/96; [2001] ECHR 326 3 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Carol Ann Bennion Times, 12 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 638; [2001] IRLR 442 4 May 2001 CA Human Rights, Employment, Police The claimant sought a judicial review against a Chief Constable against whose force she had made complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation, not to remit disciplinary proceedings against her under regulation 14 of the 1985 Regulations to another Chief Constable. Her complaint was that, in making that decision, he had not acted judicially. Held: The fact that a Chief Constable had been named as a defendant in proceedings brought by a constable, did not disqualify him from exercising his statutory duties as chief constable to hear disciplinary proceedings against the same constable. The regulations imposed an unequivocal duty on him to hear the complaint, and his general and continuing duties for the maintenance of discipline put him in a different position to that of a judge hearing a case. Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 518) 13.1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kelly And Others -v- The United Kingdom 30054/96 4 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2; No violation of Art. 6; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Shanaghan -v- The United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 326; 37715/97 4 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Â Jordan -v- United Kingdom; McKerr -v- United Kingdom; similar; ECHR 4-May-2001 - Times, 18 May 2001; 24746/94; 37715/97; 30054/96; [2001] 11 BHRC 1; [2001] 37 EHRR 52; 28883/95; (2002) 34 EHRR 20; [2001] ECHR 323; [2001] ECHR 324; [2001] ECHR 325; [2001] ECHR 327; [2001] ECHR 328; [2001] ECHR 329; [2001] ECHR 330 Â Â O'Shea -v- MGN Ltd and Free4Internet Net Limited; QBD 4-May-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 425; [2001] EMLR 943 Â Â Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) -v- Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) -v- Same; Same -v- Legal and General Assurance; HL 9-May-2001 - Times, 10 May 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] 2 AC 295; [2001] 2 WLR 1389; [2001] 2 All ER 929; [2001] UKHL 23 Â Cyprus -v- Turkey 25781/94; [2001] ECHR 331; (2002) 35 EHRR 30; (2001) 11 BHRC 45; ECHR 2001-IV; (2001) 11 BHRC 45 10 May 2001 ECHR L Wildhaber P Human Rights Hudoc (Grand Chamber) Missing persons: No violation of Art. 2, Art. 4; Violation of Arts. 2 and 5 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 5 with regard to alleged detention; Not necessary to examine Arts. 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 17; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to relatives; Not necessary to examine Arts. 8 and 10 with regard to relatives; Displaced persons: Violation of Art. 8, P1-1 and Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Arts. 14+8, 14+13 and 14+P1-1, 3, 17 and 18; No violation of Art. 2 with regard to access to medical services; Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: No violation of Arts. 5, 6 and 11; Violation of Art. 9; No violation of Art. 9 with regard to the Maronite population; Violation of Art. 10 with regard to censorship of school books; No violation of P1-1 with regard to alleged failure to protect property from interferences by private persons. The abolition by the Turkish authorities of the Greek language secondary schools in Northern Cyprus constituted a breach of A2P1. European Convention on Human Rights A2P1 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Z And Others -v- The United Kingdom Times, 31 May 2001; [2001] 2 FCR 246; 29392/95; [2001] 34 EHRR 97; [2001] 2 FLR 612; [2001] ECHR 329; [2001] ECHR 333; 10 BHRC 384; (2002) 34 EHRR 3 10 May 2001 ECHR Children, Human Rights Four children complained that, for years before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services department was well aware that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering "appalling" neglect in the home of their parents. Suspicions of abuse had arisen in 1987, but they were given effective support only in 1992. Held: The claim succeeded. The state had been in breach of its duty under Article 3 to protect them against inhuman or degrading treatment. The court upheld the commission's conclusion that the social services department had been aware that the children had been suffering such neglect as amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent its continuance: "The Court acknowledges the difficult and sensitive decisions facing social services and the important countervailing principle of respecting and preserving family life. The present case however leaves no doubt as to the failure of the system to protect these child applicants from serious, long-term neglect and abuse." Effective measures were particularly needed in the case of children and other vulnerable people. Because there was a serious doubt about the availability of a remedy through the courts, there was equally a failure to provide a remedy and accordingly a breach of Article 13. There was no breach or articles 6 or 8. Article 6(1) does not itself guarantee any particular content for civil rights and obligations in the substantive law of the Contracting States. "Article 6(1) extends only to contestations (disputes) over (civil) "rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not itself guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the contracting states. It will however apply to disputes of a "genuine and serious nature" concerning the actual existence of the right as well as to the scope and manner in which it is exercised." "The applicants alleged that the local authority had failed to protect them from inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention which provides: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The Commission in its report found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It considered that there was a positive obligation on the Government to protect children from treatment contrary to this provision. The authorities had been aware of the serious ill-treatment and neglect suffered by the four children over a period of years at the hands of their parents and failed, despite the means reasonably available to them, to take any effective steps to bring it to an end. The applicants requested the Court to confirm this finding of a violation. The Government did not contest the Commission's finding that the treatment suffered by the four applicants reached the level of severity prohibited by Article 3 and that the State failed in its positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to provide the applicants with adequate protection against inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court re-iterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The obligation on High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see A v the United Kingdom judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, para 22). These measures should provide effective protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge." European Convention on Human Rights 3 6 13 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â TP And KM -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 10-May-2001 - 28945/95; (2001) 34 EHRR 42; [2001] ECHR 332; [2001] 2 FLR 549; (2001) 3 LGLR 52; [2001] 2 FCR 289; (2001) 4 CCL Rep 398; [2001] Fam Law 590 Â Mata Estevez -v- Spain 56501/00; [2001] ECHR 896 10 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination The claimant complained that the state did not give proper recognition of his relationship with his deceased same sex partner. Held: The court noted the growing tendency in a number of European states towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals. The court considered that, despite this, there was still little common ground between the contracting states. "As regards respect for family life the court said: "As regards establishing whether the decision in question concerns the sphere of 'family life' within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention institutions, long-term homosexual relationships between two men do not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that, despite the growing tendency in a number of European states towards a legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, this is, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, an area where the contracting states 'still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation'. Accordingly, the applicant's relationship with his late partner 'does not fall within Article 8 in so far as that provision protects the right to respect for family life'. despite the growing tendency in a number of European States towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, this is, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, an area in which they still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation . . . Accordingly, the applicant's relationship with his late partner does not fall within article 8 insofar as that provision protects the right to respect for human life." and "a legitimate aim, which is the protection of the family based on marriage bonds (see, mutatis mutandis, the Marcks v Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A No. 31.¶ 40). The court considers that the difference in treatment found can be considered to fall within the state's margin of appreciation . . ." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Greater Belfast Coroner, ex parte Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Times, 11 May 2001 11 May 2001 CANI Human Rights, Coroners, Constitutional, Northern Ireland The Commission was a creation of statute, and had not been given power to intervene in judicial proceedings. The coroner was investigating deaths at Omagh from a terrorist bombing, and the Commission sought to intervene. The Act should not be read restrictively, but nor could provisions be read into it which did not exist at will. The Commission had its own powers to commence investigations. When it might become involved in proceedings, either it sought to influence the outcome or it did not. If it did not, it was an improper distraction, and if it did it would be an improper intrusion, threatening the appearance of independence of the judiciary. In either case costs would be increased and have to be paid, and new issues of equality of arms would arise. Northern Ireland Act 1998 Â Regina (on the Application of N) -v- Ashworth Special Hospital Authority and Secretary of State for Health [2001] EWHC Admin 339 11 May 2001 Admn Newman J Human Rights The claimant, a detained patient sought to challenge the right of the authorities to listen in to a random 10% of telephone calls of patients. Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000 [ Bailii ] Â Marcic -v- Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 421 14 May 2001 TCC Nuisance, Land, Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Wallbank and Wallbank -v- Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesley, Warwickshire; CA 17-May-2001 - Gazette, 01 June 2001; Times, 15 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 713; [2002] Ch 51 Â Stoidis -v- Greece [2001] ECHR 332; 46407/99; [2001] ECHR 336 17 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- H (reasonable Chastisement) Times, 17 May 2001 17 May 2001 CACD Crime, Human Rights, Children The defence of reasonable chastisement of a child by his parent remained available despite the Human Rights Act. When directing the jury the judge must give a detailed direction requesting them to consider the nature duration and context of the act, the physical and mental consequences to the child, the age and personal characteristics of the child, and the reasons given for administering the punishment. Standards of reasonableness had changed over time, and there is no impropriety in a judge allowing for this in his directions to the jury. Â Â Regina -v- A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2); HL 17-May-2001 - Times, 24 May 2001; [2001] UKHL 25; [2001] 3 All ER 1; [2001] 2 WLR 1586; [2002] 1 AC 45; [2001] UKHRR 825; (2001) 165 JPN 750; [2001] HRLR 48; [2001] Cr App R 21; 11 BHRC 225; (2001) 165 JP 609 Â Remsikova -v- Slovakia [2001] ECHR 330; 46843/99; [2001] ECHR 334 17 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Mcneil) -v- Parole Board Gazette, 17 May 2001 17 May 2001 CACD Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights The interval between occasions of consideration of the granting of parole to a discretionary life prisoner, was to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each prisoner. There was no rule that the maximum period between reviews was to be two years. The earlier case had expressly stated that no maximum interval was being set. European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 Â Scheele -c- Luxembourg 41761/98; [2001] ECHR 335 17 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Wan -v- Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs; 18-May-2001 - [2001] FCA 568 Â Baumann -v- France 33592/96; [2001] ECHR 336; [2001] ECHR 340 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Altay -c- Turquie 22279/93; [2001] ECHR 334; [2001] ECHR 338 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vermeersch -c- France 39273/98; [2001] ECHR 345; [2001] ECHR 350 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â AgguL And Others -v- Turkey 33324/96; [2001] ECHR 337 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ince And Others -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 340; 33325/96; [2001] ECHR 344 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kisa Et Autres -c- Turquie 39328/98; [2001] ECHR 342; [2001] ECHR 346 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zata And Others -v- Turkey 30453/96; [2001] ECHR 346; [2001] ECHR 347 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sarli -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 344; 24490/94; [2001] ECHR 349 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5; Violation of Art. 13; Failure to comply with obligations under former Art. 25; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Civelek Et Autres -c- Turquie 37050/97; [2001] ECHR 338; [2001] ECHR 342 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Degerli -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 339; 31896/96; [2001] ECHR 343 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sanli And Erol -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 343; 36760/97; [2001] ECHR 348 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kemal GÃœVen -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 341; 31847/96; [2001] ECHR 345 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cemal And Nurhayat Guven -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 337; 31848/96; [2001] ECHR 341 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aygodu nd Others -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 335; 33323/96; [2001] ECHR 339 22 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Worldii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Malekshad -v- Howard De Walden Estates Limited; CA 23-May-2001 - Gazette, 14 June 2001; Times, 09 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 761; [2001] 3 WLR 824 Â Denizci And Others -v- Cyprus 25316/94 ; 25317/94 ; 253 23 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Struck out of the list in respect of Aziz Marthoca; No violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Violation of P4-2; Not necessary to examine P4-3; No failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 25316/94; 25317/94; 25318/94; 25319/94; 25320/94; 25321/94; 27207/95 The court acknowledged its weakness as a tribunal of fact: "the court is acutely aware of its own shortcomings as a first instance tribunal of fact". Eropean Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers Â W & B (Children) and W (Children) [2001] EWCA Civ 757; [2001] 1 FLR 582 23 May 2001 CA Children, Human Rights If the state is to interfere in the child's right to respect for his family life, it has a duty to use its best endeavours to make good what it has taken away. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Denizci And Others -v- Cyprus 25318/94; [2001] ECHR 351; 25316/94; 25317/94 23 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Daly) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 23-May-2001 - Times, 25 May 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] 3 All ER 433; [2001] 1 AC 532; [2001] 2 WLR 1622; [2001] UKHL 26 Â Denizci And Others -v- Cyprus 25316/94; [2001] ECHR 347 23 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Wardle) -v- Leeds Crown Court; HL 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 24 May 2001; Times, 13 March 2001; [2001] UKHL 12; [2001] 2 All ER 1; [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20; [2001] 2 WLR 865; (2001) 165 JPN 327; [2001] ACD 82; (2001) 165 JP 465; [2001] HRLR 29 Â Regina -v- Yash Pal Kansal, on a Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission (2) Times, 11 June 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1260; [2002] AC 69 24 May 2001 CACD Rose LJ VP, Rougier J, McCombie J Crime, Administrative, Human Rights Once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court had to make a declaration, even if the case was very old. The effect of the 1998 Act on statute law was not retrospective, but where it affected common law the effect could be retrospective, since common law was deemed always to have been the way it now is. The result was that standards of evidence in criminal cases had retrospectively made many convictions liable to be set aside. Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â McLean and Another -v- Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another; PC 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 2425; [2001] UKPC D3; 2001 GWD 19-720; 2001 SCCR 475; 2001 SLT 780; 2002 SC (PC) 1; [2001] UKHRR 793 Â Sawoniuk -v- The United Kingdom 63716/00; [2001] ECHR 895 29 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Franz Fischer -v- Austria [2001] ECHR 348; 37950/97; [2001] ECHR 352 29 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (victim); Violation of P7-4 [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â K P -v- Finland 31764/96; [2001] ECHR 351; [2001] ECHR 355; [2010] ECHR 586 31 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maria Castelli -c- Italie 30920/96; [2001] ECHR 354; [2001] ECHR 358 31 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Akdeniz And Others -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 349; 23954/94; [2001] ECHR 353 31 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2 with State [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Metzger -c- Allemagne 37591/97; [2001] ECHR 355; [2001] ECHR 359 31 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â T P and K M -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 31-May-2001 - Times, 31 May 2001 Â K S -v- Finland 29346/95; [2001] ECHR 352; [2001] ECHR 356 31 May 2001 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 Kortak -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 353; 34499/97; [2001] ECHR 357 31 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colangelo -v- Italy 29671/96; [2001] ECHR 350; [2001] ECHR 354 31 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (P) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (Q) -v- Same Times, 01 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] 3 FCR 416; [2001] FLR 1122 1 Jun 2001 QBD Administrative, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The Prison Service's policy of refusing to allow children over the age of eighteen months to stay with their mother in prison was lawful. The impairment of family life was an inevitable and inherent part of the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. The policy was to designed allow for the protection of children's interests so far as possible. The use of a fixed age allowed proper preparation, and consistency of facilities, and there was nothing in the policy to prevent consideration of the individual circumstances in particular cases. There were arguments both for lowering the age so as to minimise the damage by occasioning it when the bond between mother and child was less, and otherwise. Prison Rules 1999 (1999 No 728) - Children Act 1989 1 - Prison Act 1952 1 Citers Â Secretary of State for Trade and Industry -v- Crane and Another Times, 04 June 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001 4 Jun 2001 ChD Company, Human Rights, Criminal Practice Outside of any statutory limitations, there was nothing to prevent a prosecutor making use of helpful ideas disclosed in civil proceedings in his case against a defendant. Questions about a defendant's right of silence in criminal proceedings did not apply in civil matters. Judges in either court had powers to control their proceedings to prevent unfairness, but the purposes of the civil court could not be delayed indefinitely because of a risk that the defendant might be prejudiced in later criminal proceedings. Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 20 Â Mills -v- News Group Newspapers Limited [2001] EWHC Ch 412 4 Jun 2001 ChD Mr Justice Lawrence Collins Information, Media, Human Rights, Equity The applicant was in a relationship with Paul McCartney, and in view of attacks on other former Beatles, she sought to restrain publication of the address of a property she had contracted to buy. The newspaper had said it would not publish unless others did, but refused to give an undertaking. The applicant obtained an injunction. Held: The freedom of the press is vital, but also a right of privacy was developing. A duty of confidence can arise in equity independently of any dealings directly between the parties, in this case where the information may be confidential in nature. The PCC code of practice could be taken into account by the court. To justify a prior restraint, the court must be satisfied that the claimant would be likely to succeed at trial. The house had not been chosen with a view to the claimant's security, and this was not a case in which an injunction should have been granted. Human Rights Act 1998 12 - Press Complaints Commission, Code of Practice 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Disci -c- Turquie 19670/92; [2001] ECHR 359; [2001] ECHR 363 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ekrem Capar -c- Turquie 19663/92; [2001] ECHR 360; [2001] ECHR 364 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Firat Koc -c- Turquie 24937/94; [2001] ECHR 361; [2001] ECHR 365 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â GÃœLfiye Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie 19679/92; [2001] ECHR 362; [2001] ECHR 366 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hasan Disci -c- Turquie 19671/92; [2001] ECHR 366; [2001] ECHR 370 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Celebi -c- Turquie 19664/92; [2001] ECHR 357; [2001] ECHR 361 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Koc -c- Turquie 19675/92; [2001] ECHR 370; [2001] ECHR 374 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dalgic -c- Turquie 19668/92; [2001] ECHR 358; [2001] ECHR 362 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â GÃœNeysu -c- Turquie 19673/92; [2001] ECHR 364; [2001] ECHR 368 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kartal -c- Turquie 19674/92; [2001] ECHR 369; [2001] ECHR 373 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mills -v- The United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 373; 35685/97; [2001] ECHR 377 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gaganus Et Autres -c- Turquie 39335/98; [2001] ECHR 365; [2001] ECHR 369 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â GÃœLnahar Calkan -c- Turquie 19661/92; [2001] ECHR 363; [2001] ECHR 367 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nuri Capar -c- Turquie 19666/92; [2001] ECHR 377; [2001] ECHR 381 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Seyfettin Calkan -c- Turquie 19665/92; [2001] ECHR 380; [2001] ECHR 384 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rabia Calkan -c- Turquie 19662/92; [2001] ECHR 379; [2001] ECHR 383 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kamil Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19681/92; [2001] ECHR 368; [2001] ECHR 372 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Osman Disci -c- Turquie 19672/92; [2001] ECHR 378; [2001] ECHR 382 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ali Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19678/92; [2001] ECHR 356; [2001] ECHR 360 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Necati Dalgic -c- Turquie 19669/92; [2001] ECHR 376; [2001] ECHR 380 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mustafa Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19683/92; [2001] ECHR 375; [2001] ECHR 379 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Muhsin Ã–ZtÃœRk -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19682/92; [2001] ECHR 374; [2001] ECHR 378 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lalihan Ekinci -c- Turquie 24947/94; [2001] ECHR 372; [2001] ECHR 376 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Holder -v- The Netherlands [2001] ECHR 367; 33258/96; [2001] ECHR 371 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kocer -c- Turquie 19676/92; [2001] ECHR 371; [2001] ECHR 375 5 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â In Re W and B (Children: Care Plan) In Re W (Child: Care Plan); CA 7-Jun-2001 - Times, 07 June 2001; [2001] 2 FLR 582 Â Kress -v- France [2001] ECHR 382; 39594/98; [2001] ECHR 386 7 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the fact that the Government Commissioner [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kolokitha -c- Grece 47020/99; [2001] ECHR 381; [2001] ECHR 385; [2011] ECHR 626 7 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â White -v- United Kingdom Unreported, 7 June 2001 7 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Benefits The UK Government took the unattractive point that the claimant had advanced a claim in writing for benefit had not done so on the official form, although it was designed specifically for widows. Held: The Court notes that in the present case the applicant made clear in the form notifying the social security office of the death of his wife that he wished to claim "widowers' benefits". The Court further notes that on two occasions a Minister of the Department of Social Security wrote to the applicant's Member of Parliament confirming that, as a man, the applicant was not entitled under the current law to claim widows' benefits. The court would look to the substance not the form. The Government contend that the applicant never made a claim for any benefits "in the proper form" and that, applying the Court's reasoning in the Cornwell case, the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of discrimination in violation of the Convention. The Court is unable to accept this argument. As appears from the Cornwell decision itself, the precise form in which an applicant indicates his intention to claim benefits is not of importance, the central question being whether the applicant has made clear his wish to claim benefits. The Court finds that in the present case the applicant made clear such intention and that he can accordingly claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34." Â Goldsmith and Another -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise Gazette, 07 June 2001; Times, 12 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1673 7 Jun 2001 QBD Lord Woolf CJ Human Rights, Customs and Excise The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and that, therefore, the reversal of the burden of proof was a breach of their right to a fair trial. Held: The Act was clear that these were civil proceedings, and the consequences and associations of the proceedings did not have the characteristics of criminal proceedings, and therefore the reversal of the burden of proof was appropriate. The court considered whether forfeiture proceedings are criminal. Full weight must be given to the consequence of goods being forfeited, but reference also made to the fact that the legislation categorises the proceedings as civil, and that none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction follow from condemnation and forfeiture proceedings. There is no conviction or finding of guilt. Under domestic law the person concerned is not treated as having a conviction. The person concerned is not subject to any other penalty, apart from the consequences of the forfeiture and loss of the goods. Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers Â Danderyds -v- Sweden Unreported, 07 June 2001; 52559/99 7 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Mas.A. Et Autres -c- Italie 53708/00; [2001] ECHR 383; [2001] ECHR 387 7 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Z E and Others -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 384; 35980/97; [2001] ECHR 388 7 Jun 2001 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 Education and Employment and Others ex parte B, Regina -v- Same ex parte T, Regina -v- Same, ex parte C Times, 08 June 2001 8 Jun 2001 QBD Human Rights, Defamation, Education The Convention gave a right to a fair reputation which had to be upheld in the law, but the disciplinary procedures within a school independent appeal panel did not directly affect that reputation, and the procedures had been designed to respect the potential for damage, and to provide proper protection. It was not necessary in this case to define the extent of such a right, but the right to a 'fair reputation' was to be preferred to an interpretation protect a 'good reputation.' European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 Â Â Matthewson -v- The Scottish Ministers; OHCS 10-Jun-2001 - Times, 24 October 2001 Â Brochu -c- France 41333/98; [2001] ECHR 385; [2001] ECHR 389 12 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â James Murray King -v- Annie Marie Walden (HM Inspector of Taxes) Times, 12 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 419; [2001] STC 822 12 Jun 2001 ChD Taxes Management, Human Rights A decision to impose a penalty on a taxpayer, involved a charge of a criminal nature, for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention. It was necessary, therefore, to proceed with such a matter quickly. Even so, in the imposition of such penalties, there was no point upon which the burden of proof did not lay on the Crown, and the taxpayer had had opportunity at each stage to have his say. In this case, the matter had taken some five years. This was only just acceptable, and the Revenue should look at some way of fast tracking appeals in such matters. European Convention on Human Rights art 6(2) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Trickovic -v- Slovenia [2001] ECHR 387; 39914/98; [2001] ECHR 391 12 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Siebenhandl -v- Austria [2001] ECHR 386; 31778/96; [2001] ECHR 390 12 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others Times, 12 June 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1075; [2001] 1 WLR 1983 12 Jun 2001 CACD Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights, Criminal Practice When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order could not be made. Second, would an order reduce or remove the threat, and could the threat of harm be achieved by some lesser order. Only then could a court come to ask whether the degree of risk which might be run outweighed the competing duty to provide an open system of justice This was a case in which it had been necessary to order a split trial, and in addition to other factors the later trial may have been prejudiced by reporting of the first, and the order was properly made. Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2) - Criminal Justice Act 1988 159 - European Convention on Human Rights 6 10 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kamil T. SÃœRek -c- Turquie 34686/97; [2001] ECHR 390; [2001] ECHR 394 14 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Medenica -v- Switzerland 20491/92; [2001] ECHR 391; [2001] ECHR 395 14 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fonseca Carreira -c- Portugal 42176/98; [2001] ECHR 389; [2001] ECHR 393 14 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights "The Court notes that the Convention institutions have consistently taken the view that Article 6.1 does not apply to proceedings for interim relief. The purpose of such proceedings is to deal with a temporary state of affairs pending the outcome of the main proceedings; consequently they do not result in a determination of civil rights and obligations (see X v U.K. No.7990/77 and APIS v Slovakia " European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adelino Et Aida Da Conceicao Santos -c- Portugal 41598/98; [2001] ECHR 388; [2001] ECHR 392 14 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Tagg Times, 14 June 2001 14 Jun 2001 CACD Crime, Human Rights The idea of what was 'drunkenness' was sufficiently clear, and not capable of being challenged under the Human Rights Act. The order which made it a criminal offence to be drunk on board an aircraft were not ultra vires, since the Act gave power to regulate for safety and that was the intention of the order. Air Navigation (No 2) Order 1995 (1995 No 1970) - Civil Aviation Act 1982 Â Dr (Mrs) U A Uruakpa -v- Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons EAT/1074/98 18 Jun 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J Altman Human Rights, Discrimination, Health Professions, Employment The applicant appealed an order striking out her complaint of race discrimination as hopeless. She sought recognition as a veterinary surgeon. Her claim had been dismissed because, under the section the College exercised a statutory power. She asserted that the regulations gave a wide discretion to the College to exempt individuals from all or part of the qualification procedures. It was held that the discretion only applied to those who already held one or more of the qualifications which were recognised. She claimed also that the tribunal system denied her the possibility of equality of arms, and therefore a fair hearing under art 6. The EAT held that the tribunal system was designed to be informal, and Chairmen are specifically required to give assistance to lay parties. There was no breach of that right. EAT Human Rights - Veterinary Surgeon (Examination of Commonwealth and Foreign Candidates) Regulations 1967 Sch para 5 - Race Relations Act 1976 41 Â Pearson and Another -v- Secretary of State for Home Department and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 927 18 Jun 2001 CA Simon Brown LJ VP Human Rights, Prisons, Constitutional, Elections The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their complaint that as serving prisoners they were unable to vote. European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1) [ Bailii ] Â Kreuz -v- Poland [2001] 11 BHRC 456; 28249/95; [2001] ECHR 394; [2001] ECHR 398; [2011] ECHR 1289 19 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights The requirement to pay fees to civil courts in connection with claims they are asked to determine could not in itself be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to a court that was incompatible with article 6(1). Article 6(1) secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. In this way, that provision embodies the 'right to a court', of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only; however it is an aspect that makes it in fact possible to benefit from the further guarantees laid down in paragraph (1) of Article 6. The fair public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings are indeed of no value at all if such proceedings are not first initiated. In civil matters one can scarcely conceive of the rule of law without there being a possibility of having access to the courts. However, a fee equivalent to the average annual salary in Poland was excessive. European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Atlan -v- The United Kingdom Times, 03 July 2001; 36533/97; (2001) 34 EHRR 833; [2001] ECHR 397 19 Jun 2001 ECHR Criminal Practice, Human Rights It was an infringement of the defendant's right to a fair trial for the trial judge not to be involved in ex parte applications to exclude evidence. The defect could not be remedied by the same evidence later being presented also to the appeal court on an ex parte basis. There is a general requirement to disclose to the defence all material in the possession of the prosecutor which might be relevant. Though it might be necessary to withhold some material in order to protect the rights of somebody else, but that could only be appropriate where strictly necessary. Here the prosecutor had repeatedly denied the existence of such material, and such behaviour must make for a denial of a fair trial. Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zwierzynski -v- Poland 34049/96; [2001] ECHR 397; [2002] ECHR 548; [2001] ECHR 401; [2002] ECHR 553 19 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mahieu -c- France 43288/98; [2001] ECHR 395; [2001] ECHR 399 19 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A.A.U. -c- France 44451/98; [2001] ECHR 392; [2001] ECHR 396; [2010] ECHR 1888 19 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Ben-Abdelaziz) -v- Haringey London Borough Council and Another; CA 19-Jun-2001 - Times, 19 June 2001 Â SBC -v- The United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 619; [2001] ECHR 396; 39360/98; [2001] ECHR 400 19 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13 The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 defendants provided for by section 25 violated article 5(3), insofar as it prohibited the grant of bail to defendants accused of a grave offence after being convicted for a first. European Convention on Human Rights 5(3) - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 25 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Ben-Abdelaziz) -v- Haringey London Borough Council and Another Gazette, 21 June 2001 21 Jun 2001 CA Judicial Review, Human Rights, Damages The claimant asserted that judicial proceedings, since they were conducted in the name of the Crown, were brought 'by or at the instigation' of a public authority, and that acts so challenged were therefore subject to the Act, even though they had taken place before the Act came into effect. The assertion was unsustainable. The Crown's involvement was nominal only, and in reality the proceedings were instigated by the claimants. The acts complained of were not therefore those of a public authority. The Supreme Court Act also precluded a claim. Human Rights Act 1998 7, 22 (4) - Supreme Court Act 1981 31(4) Â Themudo Barata -c- Portugal 43575/98; [2001] ECHR 398; [2001] ECHR 402 21 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Dr Ghosh -v- The General Medical Council; PC 25-Jun-2001 - Times, 25 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1915; [2001] UKPC 29; Appeal No 69 of 2000 Â O'Rourke -v- United Kingdom 39022/97; [2001] ECHR 889 26 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Land The applicant was a sex offender who on release from prison had found temporary accommodation from which he had been evicted for pestering female residents. He ignored advice to go to a night shelter whilst a decision on permanent re-housing was taken. He turned down other apparently reasonably offers of permanent accommodation. Having finally been offered and accepted a council tenancy he sued the local authority for damages. He claimed the hotel room as his home though he had occupied it less than a month at the discretion of the proprietors before being evicted. The Court had "significant doubts over whether or not the applicant's links with the hotel room were sufficient and continuous enough to make it his 'home' at the time of his eviction". The Court insisted on an individual's need to show sufficient and continuing links with a place in order to establish that it is his home for purposes of article 8. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Akman -v- Turkey; ECHR 26-Jun-2001 - [2001] ECHR 399; 37453/97; [2001] ECHR 403 Â Regina -v- Ashworth Special Hospital Authority and Another, ex parte N Times, 26 June 2001 26 Jun 2001 QBD Health, Human Rights A secure hospital charged with caring for patients considered to be at high risk, imposed rules for monitoring 100 per cent of the telephone calls of high risk prisoners, and a random ten per cent of lower risk patients. Privileged calls were not intercepted. It was held that although this was an infringement of the right to respect for his correspondence, the steps were taken balanced against an understanding of the high risks of escape and other damage which might be suffered. The interceptions took place in accordance with policies approved by the Home Secretary. The interceptions were lawful. Human Rights Act 1998 Â Robert Napier -v- the Scottish Ministers for Judicial Review Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] ScotCS 162 26 Jun 2001 SCS Lord Macfadyen Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights Detention in prison facilities where the applicant was confined to a shared cell for substantial parts of the day without integral toilet facilities was an infringement of the claimant's human rights under article 3. [ Bailii ] Â Beck -v- Norway [2001] ECHR 400; 26390/95; [2001] ECHR 404 26 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dindaroglu Et Autres -c- Turquie 26519/95; [2001] ECHR 401; [2001] ECHR 405 26 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rajak -v- Croatia [2001] ECHR 406; 49706/99; [2001] ECHR 410 28 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Truhli -v- Croatia 45424/99; [2001] ECHR 407; [2001] ECHR 411 28 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Verliere -v- Switzerland 41953/98; [2001] ECHR 891 28 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Agoudimos And Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co -v- Greece [2001] ECHR 402; 38703/97; [2001] ECHR 406 28 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Maillard Bous -v- Portugal [2001] ECHR 405; 41288/98; [2001] ECHR 409 28 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F R -v- Switzerland 37292/97; [2001] ECHR 404; [2001] ECHR 408 28 Jun 2001 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 ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Vgt Verein Gegen Tierfabriken -v- Switzerland; ECHR 28-Jun-2001 - 24699/94; (2002) 34 EHRR 159; [2001] ECHR 408; [2001] ECHR 412; (2002) 34 EHRR 4 Â Bento Da Mota -c- Portugal 42636/98; [2001] ECHR 403; [2001] ECHR 407 28 Jun 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Pan; Regina -v- Sawyer (2001) 147 OAC 1; (2001) 85 CRR (2d) 1; (2001) 43 CR (5th) 203; (2001) 155 CCC (3d) 97; (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 577; [2001] 2 SCR 344 29 Jun 2001 Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Criminal Practice Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Fundamental justice – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy and Criminal Code prohibition on disclosure of information about “proceedings of the jury” consistent with principles of fundamental justice – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649. Criminal law – Juries – Rule of jury secrecy – Common law rule of jury secrecy providing that evidence concerning jury deliberations is inadmissible on appeal to impeach jury’s verdict – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7. Criminal law – Juries – Disclosure of jury proceedings – Criminal Code prohibiting disclosure of information about “proceedings of the jury” except where disclosure is in context of obstruction of justice proceedings involving a juror – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649. Criminal law – Abuse of process – Fundamental justice – Double jeopardy – Whether mistrial improperly declared at end of accused’s second trial – Whether proceedings against accused should have been stayed at outset of third trial – Whether holding of third trial violated principle against double jeopardy – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(h). Criminal law – Charge to jury – Reasonable doubt – Accused convicted of first degree murder – Whether pre-Lifchus charge on reasonable doubt in substantial compliance with principles set out in Lifchus. 1 Citers [ Canlii ] Â Nivette -v- France 44190/98; [2001] ECHR 892 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Huseyin Balci -c- Turquie 19645/92; [2001] ECHR 419; [2001] ECHR 423 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Macit Balci -c- Turquie 19646/92; [2001] ECHR 421; [2001] ECHR 425 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mahmut Bilgin -c- Turquie 19651/92; [2001] ECHR 422; [2001] ECHR 426 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Bilgin -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19652/92; [2001] ECHR 423; [2001] ECHR 427 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mustafa Akkaya -c- Turquie 19644/92; [2001] ECHR 424; [2001] ECHR 428 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Egrikale -c- Turquie 19656/92; [2001] ECHR 417; [2001] ECHR 421 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Recep Erol -c- Turquie 19658/92; [2001] ECHR 426; [2001] ECHR 430 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Halil Basar -c- Turquie 19648/92; [2001] ECHR 418; [2001] ECHR 422 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Romo -c- France 40402/98; [2001] ECHR 427; [2001] ECHR 431 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sefer Erol -c- Turquie 19659/92; [2001] ECHR 428; [2001] ECHR 432 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Talip Basar -c- Turquie 19649/92; [2001] ECHR 429; [2001] ECHR 433 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Naside Erol -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19657/92; [2001] ECHR 425; [2001] ECHR 429 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ahmet Akkaya -c- Turquie 19642/92; [2001] ECHR 409; [2001] ECHR 413 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dinc -c- Turquie 19654/92; [2001] ECHR 415; [2001] ECHR 419 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bilgic -c- Turquie 19653/92; [2001] ECHR 414; [2001] ECHR 418 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bilge Baltekin -c- Turquie 19647/92; [2001] ECHR 413; [2001] ECHR 417 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Han and Yau t/a Murdishaw Supper Bar, and Others -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 03 August 2001; Gazette, 23 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1040; [2001] 1 WLR 2253 3 Jul 2001 CA Potter LJ, Mance LJ, Nourse Sir VAT, Human Rights The applicant claimed that proceedings under which he had been accused of fraud in dishonestly evading VAT liability were in reality criminal proceedings and that the minimum standards of a fair trial applied. Held: The characterisation under the rules of such proceedings as civil was a starting point only. The fact that no sanction of imprisonment could apply was relevant but not determinative. In fact the allegation required proof of dishonesty, the potential penalties were substantial, and the purpose was punitive and deterrent. Rules relaxing the admissibility of evidence were convenient for the effective collection of taxes, but that was not a consideration when the proceedings were in their nature criminal. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 - Value Added Tax Act 1994 60(1) - Finance Act 1994 8(1) - VAT Tribunal Rules 1986 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Akcay -c- Turquie 19641/92; [2001] ECHR 412; [2001] ECHR 416 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Akca -c- Turquie 19640/92; [2001] ECHR 411; [2001] ECHR 415 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ahmet Bilgin -c- Turquie 19650/92; [2001] ECHR 410; [2001] ECHR 414 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ibrahim Akkaya -c- Turquie 19643/92; [2001] ECHR 420; [2001] ECHR 424 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dokel -c- Turquie 19655/92; [2001] ECHR 416; [2001] ECHR 420 3 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â P.G.F. -c- Italie 45269/99; [2001] ECHR 432; [2001] ECHR 436 5 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Phillips -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 5-Jul-2001 - Times, 13 August 2001; 41087/98; [2001] Crim LR 817; [2001] ECHR 437; (2001) 11 BHRC 280 Â Â Regina -v- Lambert; HL 5-Jul-2001 - Times, 06 July 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 206; [2001] UKHL 37; [2002] 2 AC 545; [2002] 1 All ER 2; [2001] HRLR 55; [2001] 2 Cr App R 28; [2001] UKHRR 1074; [2001] 3 All ER 577 Â Regina (McDonagh) -v- Salisbury District Council Times, 15 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 567 5 Jul 2001 QBD Jackson J Housing, Housing, Human Rights A local authority granted the applicant an introductory tenancy, but then gave notice of its intention to issue possession proceedings in the light of tenancy breaches. The tenant requested a review, and the date was set, but this was later than the date upon which the possession proceedings were to begin. He alleged that the review was nullified by that fact. The review was defective, but the Act provided for no consequences to flow from such a breach. In such cases, the tenant could apply for the warrant for possession to be stayed pending the outcome of the review, and that was adequate to cure the failure. Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 72) - Housing Act 1996 129 (6) [ Bailii ] Â Erdem -c- Allemagne 38321/97; [2001] ECHR 430; [2001] ECHR 434 5 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giannangeli -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 431; 41094/98; [2001] ECHR 435 5 Jul 2001 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 Mutlu And Yildiz -v- Turkey 30495/96 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement). Â Fidan And Others -v- Turkey 29883/96 ; 29884/96 ; 298 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 29883/96; 29884/96; 29885/96 Â Lamanna -v- Austria 28923/95; [2001] ECHR 449; [2001] ECHR 453 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim); No violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-2; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aydin -v- Turkey 28293/95 ; 29494/95 ; 302 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 28293/95; 29494/95; 30219/96 Â Avsar -v- Turkey 25657/94 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection partly dismissed (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection partly joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation; Violation of Art. 2 with regard to death of applicant Â Avsar -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 435; 25657/94; [2001] ECHR 439 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection partly dismissed (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection partly joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 2 with regard to lack of effective investigation; Violation of Art. 2 with regard to death of applicant [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aydin -v- Turkey 28293/95 ; 29494/95 ; 302 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 28293/95; 29494/95; 30219/96 Â Fidan And Others -v- Turkey 29883/96 ; 29884/96 ; 298 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 29883/96; 29884/96; 29885/96 Â Marshall -v- United Kingdom Unreported, 10 July 2001 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights In 1998 the authorities in Northern Ireland continued to be confronted with the threat of terrorist violence, even although, by that time, its actual incidence had gone down. There had therefore been no return to normality and there was no basis for the Court to controvert the authorities' assessment of the situation in the Province in terms of the threats which organised violence posed for the life of the community and the search for a peaceful settlement. In this connexion the Court went on to recall: "that by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the pressing needs of the moment, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to decide both on the presence of such an emergency and on the nature and scope of the derogation necessary to avoid it...." 1 Citers Â Mutlu And Yildiz -v- Turkey 30495/96; [2001] ECHR 450; [2001] ECHR 454 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement). [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Orak -c- Turquie 24936/94; [2001] ECHR 451; [2001] ECHR 455 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aydin -v- Turkey 30219/96; [2001] ECHR 440; 28293/95; 29494/95 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Senses -c- Turquie 24991/94; [2001] ECHR 454; [2001] ECHR 459 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Parlak Et Autres -c- Turquie 24942/94; [2001] ECHR 452 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Avci -c- Turquie 24935/94; [2001] ECHR 434; [2001] ECHR 438 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Price -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Jul-2001 - Times, 13 August 2001; 33394/96; [2001] ECHR 453; [2001] ECHR 458; [2011] ECHR 2270 Â Aydin -v- Turkey 28293/95; [2001] ECHR 436 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bog -c- Turquie 24946/94; [2001] ECHR 437; [2001] ECHR 441 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Versini -c- France 40096/98; [2001] ECHR 456; [2001] ECHR 461 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yesiltepe -c- Turquie 28011/95; [2001] ECHR 457; [2001] ECHR 462 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boga -c- Turquie 24938/94; [2001] ECHR 438; [2001] ECHR 442 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozcelik Et Autres -c- Turquie 29425/95; [2001] ECHR 456 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tricard -c- France 40472/98; [2001] ECHR 455; [2001] ECHR 460 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cakmak -c- Turquie 31882/96; [2001] ECHR 439; [2001] ECHR 443 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Charles -c- France 41145/98; [2001] ECHR 440; [2001] ECHR 444 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fidan And Others -v- Turkey 29883/96; [2001] ECHR 445 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Kizilgedik -c- Turquie 24944/94; [2001] ECHR 448; [2001] ECHR 452 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Fidan And Others -v- Turkey; ECHR 10-Jul-2001 - 29885/96; [2001] ECHR 449; 29883/96; 29884/96 Â Demir -c- Turquie 24990/94; [2001] ECHR 442; [2001] ECHR 446 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â KÃœRkÃœT -c- Turquie 24933/94; [2001] ECHR 447; [2001] ECHR 451 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dogan -c- Turquie 24939/94; [2001] ECHR 443; [2001] ECHR 447 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ertugrul -c- Turquie 35849/97; [2001] ECHR 444; [2001] ECHR 448 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Deger -c- Turquie 24934/94; [2001] ECHR 441; [2001] ECHR 445 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcic -v- Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2001] EWHC Technology 394; [2002] QB 929; [2001] 4 All ER 326 10 Jul 2001 TCC His Honour Judge Richard Havery QC Land, Human Rights, Negligence, Nuisance, Utilities 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Parlak And Others -v- Turkey 25125/94; [2001] ECHR 457; 24942/94; 24943/94 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â KÃœCÃœK -c- Turquie 26398/95; [2001] ECHR 446; [2001] ECHR 450 10 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (C) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal; CA 11-Jul-2001 - Times, 11 July 2001; Gazette, 19 July 2001 Â Cachia and Others -v- Faluyi Times, 11 July 2001; Gazette, 19 July 2001 11 Jul 2001 CA Personal Injury, Limitation, Human Rights The words of the section had to be construed so as to make it compatible with the human rights convention. Accordingly the term 'action' in the Act was to be interpreted to mean an action where a writ was served. Children whose mother had been killed, had the human right to claim compensation for their loss of dependency. Whilst it was legitimate to impose certain restrictions on access to the courts, the effect of the words of the statute had not been considered or intended, and the court would read the section so as to make it compatible with the Act. Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3) Â Ferrazzini -v- Italy [2001] STC 1314; 44759/98; (2001) 34 EHRR 1068; [2001] ECHR 464 12 Jul 2001 ECHR Wildhaber J P Human Rights, Taxes Management (Grand Chamber) The court had to decide whether tax proceedings brought by the state against an individual involved the determination of a civil right within the meaning of article 6(1). It was argued by the Government that the existence of an individual's tax obligation to pay tax belonged exclusively to the realm of public law and its determination did not involve a determination of a civil right. The court said: "Pecuniary interests are clearly at stake in tax proceedings, but merely showing that a dispute is "pecuniary" in nature is not in itself sufficient to attract the applicability of Article 6(1) under its "civil" head. In particular, according to the traditional case law of the Conventional institutions, there may exist 'pecuniary' obligations vis-a-vis the State or its subordinate authorities which, for the purpose of Article 6(1), are to be considered as belonging exclusively to the realm of public law and are accordingly not covered by the notion of 'civil rights and obligations'. Apart from fines imposed by way of 'criminal sanction', this will be the case, in particular, where an obligation which is pecuniary in nature derives from tax legislation or is otherwise part of normal civic duties in a democratic society. The Convention is, however, a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, and it is incumbent on the Court to review whether, in the light of changed attitudes in society as to the legal protection that falls to be accorded to individuals in their relations with the State, the scope of Article 6(1) should not be extended to cover disputes between citizens and public authorities as to the lawfulness under domestic law of the tax authorities' decisions. Relations between the individual and the State have clearly developed in many spheres during the 50 years which have elapsed since the Convention was adopted, with State regulation increasingly intervening in private-law regulations. This has led the Court to find that procedures defined under national law as being part of "public law" could come within the purview of Article 6 under its "civil" head if the outcome was decisive for private rights and obligations, in regard to such matters as, to give some examples, the sale of land, the running of a private clinic, property interests, the granting of administrative authorisations relating to the conditions of professional practice or of a licence to serve alcoholic beverages. Moreover, the State's increasing intervention in the individual's day-to-day life, in terms of welfare protection, for example, has required the Court to evaluate features of public law and private law before concluding that the asserted right could be classified as "civil". However, rights and obligations existing for an individual are not necessarily civil in nature. Thus, political rights and obligations, such as the right to stand for election to the National Assembly, even though in those proceedings the applicant's pecuniary interests were at stake, are not civil in nature, with the consequence that Article 6(1) does not apply. Neither does that provision apply to disputes between administrative authorities and those of their employees who occupy posts involving participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law. Similarly, the expulsion of aliens does not give rise to disputes over civil rights for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Convention, which accordingly does not apply. In the tax field, developments which might have occurred in democratic societies do not, however, affect the fundamental nature of the obligation on individuals or companies to pay tax. In comparison with the position when the Convention was adopted, those developments have not entailed a further intervention by the State into the 'civil' sphere of the individual's life. The Court considers that tax matters still form part of the hard core of public-authority prerogatives, with the public nature of the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax authority remaining predominant . ." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Governor of Brixton Prison and Others Gazette, 13 September 2001 12 Jul 2001 QBD Brooke LJ, Harrison J Extradition, Human Rights The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus. He had been committed to prison pending extradition for murder to the USA. He argued that he should not be extradited because he would face a possible death penalty. The court refused the writ. The issue was not one to be faced at committal, but properly one to be addressed to the Secretary of State when the warrant was requested. Â Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein -v- Germany 42527/98; [2001] ECHR 467 12 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14 Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14 European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Malhous -v- The Czech Republic 33071/96 12 Jul 2001 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 - Convention proceedings Â Feldek -v- Slovakia [2001] ECHR 459; 29032/95; [2001] ECHR 463; [2011] ECHR 604 12 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; No separate issue under Art. 9; No violation of Art. 14; 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 ] - [ Bailii ] Â K And T -v- Finland 25702/94; (2001) 36 EHRR 255; [2001] ECHR 461; [2001] 2 FLR 707; [2001] ECHR 465 12 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to emergency care order concerning J.; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to emergency care order concerning M.; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to normal care orders; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to failure to take steps to reunite family; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to access restrictions; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The mutual enjoyment by a parent and child of each other's company is a fundamental element of family life. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Malhous -v- The Czech Republic [2001] ECHR 462; 33071/96; [2001] ECHR 466 12 Jul 2001 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 - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Feldek -v- Slovakia 29032/95 12 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; No separate issue under Art. 9; No violation of Art. 14; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers Â Machous -v- The Czech Republic Unreported, 12 July 2001 12 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Â Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001); CACD 12-Jul-2001 - Times, 12 July 2001; Gazette, 23 August 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1869; [2001] EWCA Crim 1568 Â St John -v- United States of America and Another Times, 10 August 2001 12 Jul 2001 CA Brooke LJ, Harrison J Extradition, Human Rights The applicant sought to challenge extradition proceedings on the grounds that it would be a breach of his human rights to allow him to be extradited to a country where he might face the death penalty, a penalty precluded under the Convention. The court held that the extradition proceedings themselves should not be affected by this question, but instead the issue should be addressed, if an order was made, at the point where the Secretary of State made the executive decision to return the prisoner, perhaps by seeking re-assurances from the requesting state about compliance with the convention. The risk of his being also dealt with for other offences not the subject of the extradition application should be dealt with in the same way. European Convention on Human Rights Sixth Protocol Art 1 Â Regina (M (a Minor)) -v- Commissioner of Police; Regina (La Rose) -v- Same Times, 17 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 553 13 Jul 2001 QBD Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Poole Human Rights, Prisons The applicants sought orders that their human rights had been infringed by the conditions of their detention at police stations. One asserted that he had not had opportunity to speak to his solicitor on the phone in private, and the other complained that the arrangements did not guarantee privacy. The court rejected the claims on the basis that the deprivation of the right was either theoretical in one case or illusory in the other. There was no evidence of actual interference with the prisoners human rights. Human Rights jurisprudence had suggested that there was no need to demonstrate actual prejudice, but the UK Act required the court to establish a municipal jurisprudence of human rights. Our common law rights are not lessened or weakened by being re-shaped to fit the facts of particular cases. The rights under the Act and Convention had always to be read in the particular context. European Convention on Human Rights - Human Rights Act 1998 2 [ Bailii ] Â Â Gough and Another -v- Chief Constable of Derbyshire; Regina (Miller) -v- Leeds Magistrates' Court; Lilley -v- Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 13-Jul-2001 - Times, 19 July 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 554; [2001] 3 WLR 1392 Â Dr Y R Teinaz -v- Wandsworth Borough Council Times, 21 August 2002; [2002] IRLR 721 16 Jul 2001 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lady Justice Arden and Mr Justice Buckley Employment, Human Rights The applicant had made a claim to the tribunal, but then applied for an adjournment on medical grounds, submitting a medical certificate. Held: Where a refusal to exercise a discretion could lead to the loss of significant rights, a court should be particularly careful before refusing to exercise it. Here they had doubts about the veracity of a medical certificate, but there had been alternatives to refusing an adjournment and proceeding in the applicant's absence. To proceed in his absence was to deny him his right to a fair trial under the Convention. The exercise of a discretion could be set aside where the court had taken into account an irrelevant factor. The EAT had been right to uphold an appeal against the dismissal of the claim. Each such application fell to be decided on its own facts, and the court was not introducing a rule as to how such matters were to be dealt with. European Convention on Human Rights 10 1 Cites 1 Citers Â A.T. Et Autres -c- Turquie 37040/97; [2001] ECHR 464; [2001] ECHR 468 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bagci Et Murg -c- Turquie 29862/96; [2001] ECHR 465; [2001] ECHR 469 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caloglu -c- Turquie 32450/96; [2001] ECHR 466; [2001] ECHR 470 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sadak And Others -v- Turkey 29900/96; [2001] ECHR 475 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Karatepe And Kirt -v- Turkey 28017/95; [2001] ECHR 475; 28013/95 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Demir Et Gul -c- Turquie 29866/96; [2001] ECHR 467 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Okuyucu And Others -v- Turkey 28016/95; [2001] ECHR 477; 28014/95; 28015/95 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Samaroo and Sezek -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 17-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 June 2001; Gazette, 09 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 795; [2001] EWCA Civ 1139; [2002] 1 WLR 348; [2001] UKHRR 1150; [2002] INLR 55 Â E.A. Et Autres -c- Turquie 38379/97; [2001] ECHR 468; [2001] ECHR 472 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Demir And Gul -v- Turkey 29872/96; [2001] ECHR 471; 29866/96; 29867/96 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Sadak And Others -v- Turkey 29902/96; [2001] ECHR 479; 29900/96; 29901/96 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Pogorzelec -c- Pologne 29455/95; [2001] ECHR 474; [2001] ECHR 478 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Okuyucu Et Autres -c- Turquie 28014/95; [2001] ECHR 473 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â M.T. Et Autres -c- Turquie 34502/97; [2001] ECHR 472; [2001] ECHR 476 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Karatepe Et Kirt -c- Turquie 28013/95; [2001] ECHR 471 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â I. Bilgin -v- Turkey 25659/94; [2001] ECHR 470; [2001] ECHR 474 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ekin Association -v- France 39288/98; [2001] ECHR 469; [2001] ECHR 473 17 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Preiss -v- General Dental Council Times, 14 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1926; [2001] UKPC 36; No 63 of 2000 17 Jul 2001 PC Bingham of Cornhill L, Cooke of Thorndon L, Millett L Health Professions, Human Rights, Constitutional, Health Professions (Professional Conduct Committee of the GDC) The procedures of the General Dental Council were in breach of the right to a fair trial, insofar as the same person might both carry out the preliminary stages of an investigation, and later be involved in the hearing of the complaint itself. In this case the chairman had also made the decision to present the complaint. The board of the Privy Council had the power to hear appeals against findings of misconduct, as well as suspensions, and could substitute a an admonition for a suspension. The existence of this power was necessary in order to correct the weaknesses in the current disciplinary system, and the power included where necessary the power to deal with issues of fact as well as law and discretion. Serious professional misconduct does not require moral turpitude. Gross professional negligence can fall within it. Something more is required than a degree of negligence enough to give rise to civil liability but not calling for the opprobrium that inevitably attaches to the disciplinary offence. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] Â St Brice and Another -v- Southwark London Borough Council Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1138; [2002] 1 WLR 1537 17 Jul 2001 CA Kennedy LJ, Chadwick LJ, Rix LJ Human Rights, Housing, Litigation Practice The council having obtained a possession order, suspended on terms, through court proceedings, later sought to enforce the order by a warrant for possession issued without first giving notice to the tenant. The tenant alleged that the grant of the warrant was in breach of his right to a fair trial. The court held that the hearing at which the possession order had been granted satisfied the applicant's right to a fair trial. The issue of the warrant merely gave effect to the order, and did not alter the tenant's legal status, nor make any decision about his rights. Proportionality had been considered at the first hearing. The choice of the County Court rather than the High Court was made without reference to any characteristic of the applicant, and could not be said to be discriminatory. Kennedy LJ: "the routine enforcement of court orders …should not normally entail a separate hearing". There is a need for "court administration [to be] flexible and efficient". Rix LJ: "An efficient procedure for routine execution of the court's orders is in the public interest". Housing Act 1985 85 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Elliot [2001] EWHC Admin 559 18 Jul 2001 Admn Lord Justice Rose And Mr Justice Silber Extradition, Human Rights The applicant sought to challenge an order for his return to Hong Kong under the Act. He said that the ordnance under which he was to be tried, and anti-corruption statute, infringed his human rights by transferring to him the burden of proof. The Secretary of State argued that an English court should not impose its standards on other countries (per Drozd). Held: Issues as to the fairness of a trial are best decided at the trial itself. The Hong Kong ordnance did include protections, and such offences might require special provisions. The Secretary's decision to extradite was not to be faulted. Extradition Act 1989 12(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 6.2 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Ashdown -v- Telegraph Group Ltd; CA 18-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; (2001) 24(9) IPD 24058,; [2001] HRLR 57; [2001] EMLR 44; [2001] 4 All ER 666; [2001] UKHRR 1242; [2002] ECC 19; [2002] RPC 5; [2001] 3 WLR 1368; [2002] ECDR 32; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1142; [2002] Ch 149; [2002] RPC 235 Â Â Thomas -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes; CA 18-Jul-2001 - Times, 25 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1233; [2002] EMLR 78 Â Thomas -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233; [2002] EMLR 4 18 Jul 2001 CA Lord Phillips MR, Jonathan Parker LJ, Mustill J Civil Procedure Rules, Torts - Other, Media, Human Rights The publication of articles in a newspaper describing how a "black clerk" had complained about the allegedly racist comments of two policemen was said to have caused the claimant to receive racist hate mail. Held: The court considered the type of conduct which had to be proved to bring the case within the statute. Publication of press articles is, in law, capable of amounting to harassment albeit in only very rare circumstances. Lord Phillips MR said that: "Section 7 of the 1997 Act does not purport to provide a comprehensive definition of harassment. There are many actions that foreseeably alarm or cause a person distress that could not possibly be described as harassment. It seems to me that section 7 is dealing with that element of the offence which is constituted by the effect of the conduct rather than with the types of conduct that produce that effect. The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct that is capable of constituting harassment. "Harassment" is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable. The practice of stalking is a prime example of such conduct." Civil Procedure Rules 24 - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Human Rights Act 1998 12(4) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (Carroll and Another) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Greenfield) -v- Same; CA 19-Jul-2001 - Times, 16 August 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 545 Â Â Regina (P) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Regina (Q and Another) -v- Same; CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1151; [2001] 2 FLR 1122; [2001] UKHRR 1035; [2001] 1 WLR 2002; [2001] 3 FCR 416; [2001] Prison LR 297; [2001] Fam Law 803 Â Â Regina (P) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; Regina (Q and Another) -v- Same; CA 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 01 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1151; [2001] 2 FLR 1122; [2001] UKHRR 1035; [2001] 1 WLR 2002; [2001] 3 FCR 416; [2001] Prison LR 297; [2001] Fam Law 803 Â Pellegrini -v- Italy 30882/96; [2001] ECHR 476; [2001] ECHR 480 20 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Gunn-Russo -v- Nugent Care Society and Secretary of State for Health; Admn 20-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 566 Â Â Millar -v- Dickson; PC 24-Jul-2001 - Times, 27 July 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1615; DRA Nos 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 2000; [2001] UKHRR 999; 2001 SLT 988; 2002 SC (PC) 30; [2002] 3 All ER 1041; [2001] HRLR 59; [2001] UKPC D4; 2001 SCCR 741; 2001 GWD 26-1015 Â Valasinas -v- Lithuania 44558/98; [2001] ECHR 479; [2001] ECHR 483 24 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to body search; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to other complaints; Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Strip-searches may be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime. Here the applicant had been made to strip naked and have his sexual organs touched in front of a woman. European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 34 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Van Nus -v- The Netherlands [2001] ECHR 480; 37538/97; 37538/97; [2001] ECHR 484 24 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rutten -v- The Netherlands [2001] ECHR 478; 32605/96; [2001] ECHR 482 24 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons The claimant prisoner complained of the delay in his release, awaiting a review. Domestic court proceedings had lasted two and a half months at first instance and a further three months on appeal. The proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor to obtain an extension of the period during which the applicant, who had been convicted of attempted murder, was confined in a secure institution where he was being treated. The proceedings were based on the institution's assessment that the applicant remained dangerous. The applicant unsuccessfully opposed the proceedings on a technical ground relating to jurisdiction. Held: There had been a violation of article 5(4) as a result of delay in the holding of a hearing to determine whether the prolongation of detention was necessary, following the expiry of the period initially authorised. The court also held that there had been no violation of article 5(1). The purpose of article 5(1) was to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion, and, on the facts, the detention during the period of the delay could not be regarded as involving an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. European Convention on Hman Rights 5(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Hirst -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 24-Jul-2001 - Times, 03 August 2001; 40787/98; [2001] ECHR 477; [2001] ECHR 481 Â Perna -v- Italy 23-24, ECHR 2003-V; [2001] ECHR 481; [2003] ECHR 230; 48898/99 25 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 6-3-d + 6-1; No violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Director General of Fair Trading -v- Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1217 26 Jul 2001 CA Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Robert Walker, Master of the Rolls Administrative, Costs, Human Rights The appeal court had previously remitted a matter to the Restrictive Practices court, having found that the court might be biased. The parties having settled the main litigation, they sought the additional costs incurred by them in correcting what they said was the fault of the court. The Lord Chancellor responded that the parties were acting only in a representative capacity, the court hearing was not determinative of their rights, thus their Human rights had not been infringed. No representative order had been made. The request failed. Supreme Court Act 1981 51 - Human Rights Act 1998 - Restrictive Practices Court (Resale Prices) Rules 1976 9(b) [ Bailii ] Â Â In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 4); CA 26-Jul-2001 - Times, 06 August 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001 Â Kreps -v- Poland 34097/96 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Jedamski -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 486; 29691/96; [2001] ECHR 490 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - Claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ilijkov -v- Bulgaria 33977/96; [2001] ECHR 489 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings “[T]he [authorities] applied law and practice under which there was a presumption that remand in custody was necessary in cases where the sentence faced went beyond a certain threshold of severity ...[While] the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element .... the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of pre-trial detention … That is particularly true in the present case where under the applicable domestic law and practice the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - was determined by the prosecution authorities without judicial control of the question whether or not the evidence supported reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed an offence attracting a sentence of the relevant length … The only other ground for the applicant’s lengthy detention was the domestic courts’ finding that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting release. However, that finding was not based on an analysis of all pertinent facts. The authorities regarded the applicant’s arguments that he had never been convicted, that he had a family and a stable way of life, and that after the passage of time any possible danger of collusion or absconding had receded, as irrelevant. They did so because by virtue of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s practice the presumption under that provision was only rebuttable in very exceptional circumstances where even a hypothetical possibility of absconding, re-offending or collusion was excluded due to serious illness or other exceptional factors. It was moreover incumbent on the detained person to prove the existence of such exceptional circumstances, failing which he was bound to remain in detention on remand throughout the proceedings … The Court reiterates that continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty. Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Jecius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000?IX] §§ 93 and 94). Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases.” European Convention on Human Rights 5(3) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kreps -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 487; 34097/96; [2001] ECHR 491 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jedamski -v- Poland 29691/96 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - Claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Martinez -v- Italy 41893/98; [2001] ECHR 488; [2001] ECHR 492 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Horvat -v- Croatia 51585/99 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â F.R. Et Autres -c- Italie 45267/99; [2001] ECHR 483; [2001] ECHR 487 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Giovine -c- Italie 39920/98; [2001] ECHR 482; [2001] ECHR 486 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Horvat -v- Croatia [2001] ECHR 484; 51585/99; [2001] ECHR 488 26 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mousaka Inc -v- Golden Seagull Maritime Inc Times, 03 October 2001 30 Jul 2001 QBD Steel J Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Arbitration There has been no change to the rule that a judge refusing leave to appeal from an arbitration award, need not give his reasons. The rationale is that the question is a threshold one, of whether a particular standard had been reached. It was not a situation where a detailed examination was to be undertaken, and accordingly reasons were not appropriate. The position has not changed under the Human Rights Act. Arbitration Act 1996 69 - Human Rights Act 1998 1 Cites Â Regina -v- Williams; Regina -v- Saunby; Regina -v- Ashby; Regina -v- Schofield; Regina -v- Marsh, Regina -v- Webb; Regina -v- Leese; Regina -v- Dodds; Regina -v- Clarkson; Regina -v- English Gazette, 04 October 2001; Times, 08 October 2001 30 Jul 2001 CMAC Laws LJ, Turners and McCombe JJ Armed Forces, Human Rights The appellants variously claimed their convictions should be set aside because the court which had heard their cases was not independent and impartial. They alleged in particular that questions of military discipline and morale would affect the court process making it unfair. The merits of the decision to prosecute were outside the ambit of article 6, and, even if it were not, there was no vice in those considerations affecting the decision. 1 Cites Â Zannouti -c- France 42211/98; [2001] ECHR 492; [2001] ECHR 496 31 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mortier -c- France 42195/98; [2001] ECHR 490; [2001] ECHR 494 31 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Berezovsky and Glouchkov -v- Forbes Inc and Michaels; CA 31-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1251; [2001] EMLR 45 Â Malve -c- France 46051/99; [2001] ECHR 489; [2001] ECHR 493 31 Jul 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pearce -v- Mayfield School Gazette, 27 September 2001; Times, 09 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1347; [2001] Emp LR 1112; [2002] ICR 198; [2002] ELR 16; [2001] IRLR 669 31 Jul 2001 CA Henry LJ, Judge LJ, Hale LJ Discrimination, Human Rights, Employment, Discrimination The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the school were no responsible for it. The 1998 Act had come into effect. Held: The actions were discriminatory, but the 1975 Act operated against discrimination on the grounds of sex, not sexual orientation. The argument that the abuse was gender specific was insufficient alone to make is discrimination for sex: "The crucial distinction between the sexual harassment cases and others is that the disliked woman is being subjected to abuse of a sexual nature whereas an equally disliked man would be subject to a different sort of abuse. This is a difference of treatment based on sex: and most people would have little difficulty in deciding that abuse of a sexual nature was "less favourable" than other types of abuse. But if the true comparator is a male homosexual, and a male homosexual would have been subject to the same sort of sexual harassment, albeit using different words, then it cannot be said that this is less favourable treatment on grounds of sex." The Court went on to examine the effect of the 1998 Act. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Human Rights Act 1998 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mahmood and Shamllakh Application for Judicial Review [2001] EWCA Civ 1245 31 Jul 2001 CA Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Rix Land, Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina on the Application of Anna Ford -v- The Press Complaints Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 683 31 Jul 2001 Admn The Honourable Mr. Justice Sibler Media, Information, Judicial Review, Human Rights, Administrative The complainant had been photographed wearing a bikini, whilst on holiday by a photographer using a long lens. She had been on a quiet part of public beach. She complained to the Press Complaints Commission who rejected her complaint. The rules required press not to use such tactics when the subject was on private property, and the definition of that included a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. The commission found it to be a public place. She sought to review their decision. The commission that it exercised a public function under the Act. On judicial review, the court was not to substitute its own decision for that of the executive. The human rights law might now require a more intensive review, when considering the proportionality of any interference with the subject's rights of privacy. Nevertheless, the English courts will continue to defer to the views of bodies like the Commission even after the HRA. In this case also there had been a delay in applying for the review, and the application for leave to review was dismissed. Code of Practice of the Press Complaints Commission - Human Rights Act 1998 6 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) And Others -v- Turkey 41340/98; [2001] ECHR 491; [2003] ECHR 87; 41343/98; [2001] ECHR 495; 41342/98 31 Jul 2001 ECHR J-P Costa P Human Rights Hudoc The claimants said that the dissolution of their political party by the Turkish Constitutional Court infringed their rights. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Grande Oriente D'Italia Di Palazzo Giustiniani -v- Italy 35972/97; [2001] ECHR 496; [2001] ECHR 500; [2010] ECHR 2230 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vittorio And Luigi Mancini -v- Italy 44955/98; [2001] ECHR 498; [2001] ECHR 502 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Boultif -v- Switzerland 54273/00; (2000) 22 EHRR 50; [2001] ECHR 497 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Immigration The applicant complained under Article 8 that the Swiss authorities had not renewed his residence permit, after which he had been separated from his wife, a Swiss citizen and who could not be expected to follow him to Algeria. Switzerland argued that his conviction for an offence of violence was sufficient justification for interfering with his rights. Held: The Convention does not guarantee any right to inhabit a country. The refusal was in accordance with law, but the question was whether the interference in this manner was necessary in a democratic society. Although he had been convicted of a serious crime, the evidence was of rehabilitation. The interference in this case was not proportionate. As to the suggested article 8 interference: "The Court has only to a limited extent decided cases where the main obstacle to expulsion is the difficulties for the spouses to stay together and in particular for a spouse and/or children to live in the other's country of origin. It is therefore called upon to establish guiding principles in order to examine whether the measure was necessary in a democratic society. In assessing the relevant criteria in such a case, the Court will consider the nature and seriousness of the offence committed by the applicant; the length of the applicant's stay in the country from which he is going to be expelled; the time elapsed since the offence was committed as well as the applicant's conduct in that period; the nationalities of the various persons concerned; the applicant's family situation, such as the length of the marriage; and other factors expressing the effectiveness of a couple's family life; whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship; and whether there are children in the marriage, and if so, their age. Not least, the Court will also consider the seriousness of the difficulties which the spouse is likely to encounter in the country of origin, though the mere fact that a person might face certain difficulties in accompanying her or his spouse cannot in itself exclude an expulsion." Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Elia S.R.L. -v- Italy 37710/97; [2001] ECHR 495; [2004] ECHR 376; [2001] ECHR 499; [2004] ECHR 376 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â NF -v- Italy 37119/97 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to the divulgence of the applicant Â Cooperativa La Laurentina -c- Italie 23529/94; [2001] ECHR 494; [2001] ECHR 498 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â N F -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 497; 37119/97; [2001] ECHR 501 2 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to the divulgence of the applicant [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Anthony Dudson V The United Kingdom 39586/05; [2008] ECHR 135; [2009] ECHR 1308 14 Aug 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â In the Matter of A (a Child) and O (a Child) [2001] NIEHC 60 20 Aug 2001 NIHC Northern Ireland, Education, Human Rights The two children had each been rejected for admission to the secondary schools of their first choice, by application of that school's sub-criteria. The regulations governed admissible elements of such criteria. The sub-criteria included evidence of participation in extra curricular activities. The applicants asserted that these were discriminatory, and a breach of the right of poorer children to a proper education. There is no right to a particular form of education or at a particular school, but there is a right not to be discriminated against in the provision of whatever education is provided. In this case there was insufficient evidence to support or test the assertions made, and the applications were refused. Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 - Secondary Schools (Admissions Criteria) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8, 16 [ Bailii ] Â Â London Regional Transport, London Underground Limited -v- Mayor of London Transport for London; CA 24-Aug-2001 - [2003] EMLR 4; [2001] EWCA Civ 1491 Â Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review [2001] NIQB 32 4 Sep 2001 QBNI Kerr J Northern Ireland, Police, Coroners, Human Rights An application was made for the production of documents by the police to support representations to be made on behalf of the family of the deceased to the coroner. The police requested but were refused undertakings as to their use. European Convention on Human Rights 2 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hubbard and Others -v- Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority and Others Times, 08 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1455; [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 8; [2002] PIQR P14; [2001] CP Rep 117 7 Sep 2001 CA Lord Justice Tuckey and Lady Justice Hale Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights, Litigation Practice In a medical negligence case, the court ordered a pre-trial private meeting between the expert witnesses for the claimant and defendant. The claimant objected, fearing that pressure would be brought on his professional witness by his colleagues, thus denying him a fair trial under article 6. Held: The aim of the experts' meeting was to identify and limit the medical issues needed to be decided at trial. It was a necessary function, and the concerns of the claimant could be met by the recording of the meeting. Civil Procedure Rules 35.12 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 6 [ Bailii ] Â Urbarska Obec Trencianske Biskupice 74258/01; [2007] ECHR 982; [2009] ECHR 159; [2009] ECHR 1270; [2008] ECHR 1894 7 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (on the application of Baram etc) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department 7 Sep 2001 Admn Immigration, Human Rights Asylum seekers had been detained on arrival in the UK, and then released. They challenged the propriety of the detention. The policy was that detention was appropriate where entry had been achieved through breach of immigration control, and did not depend upon whether the detainee might abscond. It appeared that the system worked for the administrative convenience of making speedy decisions, and not because he has done anything which might usually be considered as a justification for depriving him of his liberty. None of the detainees had been told why they were being held, and misleading reasons for detention were recorded. The detention required justification under article 5 of the Convention. It would be artificial to suggest that detention was for the purposes of art 5(1)(f), and the detention was unlawful. To be lawful, detention must be justified for each individual under Article 5.1(f). Immigration Act 1971 Sch 2 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Yogathas) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1611 9 Sep 2001 CA Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Anthony Evans Immigration, Human Rights When assessing the propriety of an order requiring an asylum seeker to be removed and returned to a third country, it was wrong to look at the processes which might be applied by that third country. The court should look at the outcome of the decision and the test laid down, namely whether that third country might itself deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the Convention. Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2 - Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A -v- B plc and Another Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 02 November 2001 10 Sep 2001 QBD Jack J Media, Human Rights The applicant, a professional footballer, sought an injunction to prevent the defendant newspaper and the woman second defendant from publishing or disclosing details of a sexual relationship between them. He succeeded. There was no public interest in the disclosure of such material, and the law of confidentiality could apply to the facts of the existence of and details of sexual activity between private individuals, even in the absence of an explicit agreement to that effect. A balance had to be found between the rights of individuals, and the rights of the press of freedom of expression. In this case the likelihood was that the claimant would succeed at trial. The three requirements appeared to have been met, namely that the information had the necessary quality of confidence, it had been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and there was an unauthorised use of the information. The interlocutory injunction was granted. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Alan Raymond Myles -v- Barry Heywood [2001] ScotSC 16 10 Sep 2001 ScSf Scotland, Human Rights, Litigation Practice The pursuer craved from the Sheriff an interim interdict against the Procurator Fiscal from proceeding with a criminal charge. Held: the Sheriff sitting in a civil court has no power to restrain criminal proceedings by the Procurator Fiscal, even though the pursuer sought to enforce his Convention rights. The general rule, under the 1947 Act, is that interdict against the Crown cannot be granted. European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 - Crown Proceedings Act 1947 21(1) 42 43 [ Bailii ] Â Alexander -v- Halifax Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1404 14 Sep 2001 CA Chadwick LJ, Laws LJ Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Â Cowl and others -v- Plymouth City Council; Admn 14-Sep-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 734 Â Mustafa Sahin -c- Turquie 19689/92; [2001] ECHR 520; [2001] ECHR 524 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Necati Tosun -c- Turquie 19695/92; [2001] ECHR 522; [2001] ECHR 526 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mevlut Tasdemir -c- Turquie 19693/92; [2001] ECHR 518; [2001] ECHR 522 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Omer Ozturk -c- Turquie 19684/92; [2001] ECHR 523; [2001] ECHR 527 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ozen -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19677/92; [2001] ECHR 524; [2001] ECHR 528 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Oztekin -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 20129/92; [2001] ECHR 525; [2001] ECHR 529 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â S.G. -c- France 40669/98; [2001] ECHR 526; [2001] ECHR 530 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sakir Yilmaz -c- Turquie 19698/92; [2001] ECHR 527; [2001] ECHR 531 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sevket Yilmaz -c- Turquie 20160/92; [2001] ECHR 529; [2001] ECHR 533 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sulun -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19686/92; [2001] ECHR 530; [2001] ECHR 534 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Sahin -c- Turquie 19688/92; [2001] ECHR 517; [2001] ECHR 521 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Satu Bozkurt -c- Turquie 20135/92; [2001] ECHR 528; [2001] ECHR 532 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Havva Oztekin -c- Turquie 20149/92; [2001] ECHR 507; [2001] ECHR 511 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adil Oztekin -c- Turquie 20147/92; [2001] ECHR 499; [2001] ECHR 503 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baltekinoglu -c- Turquie 20130/92; [2001] ECHR 500; [2001] ECHR 504 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Basar -c- Turquie 20131/92; [2001] ECHR 501; [2001] ECHR 505 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mustafa Tosun -c- Turquie 20159/92; [2001] ECHR 521; [2001] ECHR 525 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Celal Sen -c- Turquie 19690/92; [2001] ECHR 502; [2001] ECHR 506 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yunus Ozturk -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19685/92; [2001] ECHR 531; [2001] ECHR 535 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ekrem Oztekin -c- Turquie 20148/92; [2001] ECHR 504; [2001] ECHR 508 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Danis -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 20141/92; [2001] ECHR 503; [2001] ECHR 507 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hasan Ozturk -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19680/92; [2001] ECHR 506; [2001] ECHR 510 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Celebi -c- Turquie 20138/92; [2001] ECHR 516; [2001] ECHR 520 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hicap Oztekin -c- Turquie 20150/92; [2001] ECHR 508; [2001] ECHR 512 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Huseyin Sahin -c- Turquie 19687/92; [2001] ECHR 509; [2001] ECHR 513 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Huseyin Yavuz -c- Turquie 19697/92; [2001] ECHR 510; [2001] ECHR 514 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ibrahim Tasdemir -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19692/92; [2001] ECHR 511; [2001] ECHR 515 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ismihan Celebi -c- Turquie 20137/92; [2001] ECHR 512; [2001] ECHR 516 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Keziban Sen -c- Turquie 19691/92; [2001] ECHR 513; [2001] ECHR 517 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kucukdemirkan -c- Turquie 20145/92; [2001] ECHR 514; [2001] ECHR 518 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mahir Tasdemir -c- Turquie 20157/92; [2001] ECHR 515; [2001] ECHR 519 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fatma Yavuz -c- Turquie 19696/92; [2001] ECHR 505; [2001] ECHR 509 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Allan Samaroo -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 18 September 2001 18 Sep 2001 CA Immigration, Human Rights A civil court of appeal has power to hear an application for bail in the course of a judicial review of a committal to custody under the Act pending deportation. Though the applicant could have sought habeas corpus, the court could exercise a similar powers by way of an original jurisdiction. The power to commit a deportee to custody was within the statutory power of the Secretary of State. The power was an inherent one, but was now to be seen in the light of the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless the court should attach particular weight to the views of the Secretary of State. In this case his decision was not to be disturbed. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Yusuf Celebi -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19667/92; [2001] ECHR 532; [2001] ECHR 536 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zekeriya Tasdemir -c- Turquie (NÂ° 2) 19694/92; [2001] ECHR 533; [2001] ECHR 537 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Minikli -c- Turquie 20146/92; [2001] ECHR 519; [2001] ECHR 523 18 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â H M Attorney-General -v- Ebert [2001] EWHC Admin 695; [2002] 2 All ER 789 21 Sep 2001 Admn Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Harrison Litigation Practice, Human Rights The defendant had instituted over 80 fruitless actions over years. He had been made subject to a vexatious litigant order, but the Attorney General now requested additional injunctive relief. This was a very extreme instance of extreme litigation. He had since applied for permission over 150 times to begin different kinds of proceedings. He had come to conclude that one judge was corrupt and biased against him, and his actions had led to his being requested to leave the courts. He was interrupting the smooth administration of justice. Every citizen has a right of access to a court both at common law and pursuant to ECHR Article 6. This right of access is not absolute. There is a distinction between controlling the issue of proceedings, and physical disturbances of court proceedings. An injunction in precise terms was to be granted to exclude the defendant from the Royal Courts of Justice save as provided. Supreme Court Act 1981 42 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â PG and JH -v- The United Kingdom Times, 19 October 2001; 44787/98; [2001] ECHR 550; [2001] ECHR 44787/98; ECHR 2001 IX 25 Sep 2001 ECHR J-P. Costa, President, and Judges W. Fuhrmann, P. Kuris, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza and K. Traja Section Registrar S. Doll Human Rights, Human Rights, Police The use of covert listening devices within a police station was an infringement of the right to privacy, since there was no system of law regulating such practices. That need not affect the right to a fair trial. The prosecution had a duty to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence. In this case the material which the prosecution sought to keep secret had not been relied upon in evidence, and the witness whom the defence had wished to cross examine had been examined by the judge in private. Voice samples which had been obtained without consent and were used to link recordings were to be treated in ways similar to other samples such as blood and hair and other objective physical samples. "The Court also notes that the material which was not disclosed in the present case formed no part of the prosecution case whatever, and was never put to the jury. The fact that the need for disclosure was at all times under assessment by the trial judge provided a further, important safeguard in that it was his duty to monitor throughout the trial the fairness or otherwise of the evidence being withheld. It has not been suggested that the judge was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 §1. He was fully versed in all the evidence and issues in the case and in a position to monitor the relevance to the defence of the withheld information both before and during the trial". A person who walks a public street will be visible to any public present and, in the same way, to a security guard viewing the scene through closed circuit television, but private life considerations may arise once any systematic or permanent record comes into existence of such material from the public domain. As to the scope of Article 8: "Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. The Court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8. The Article also protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish relationships with other human beings and the outside world…..There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of "private life." There are a number of elements relevant to a consideration of whether a person's private life is concerned in measures effected outside a person's home or private premises. Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person's reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, though not necessarily conclusive, factor. A person who walks down the street will, inevitably, be visible to any member of the public who is also present. Monitoring by technological means of the same public scene (for example a security guard viewing through closed circuit television) is of a similar character…" European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sahiner -v- Turkey 29279/95; [2001] ECHR 548; [2001] ECHR 552 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the length of the proceedings; Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards independence and impartiality; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (as regards independence and impartiality); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (as regards length); Costs and expenses partial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â MorsÃœMbÃœL -c- Turquie 31895/96; [2001] ECHR 545; [2001] ECHR 549 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gulsen And Halil Yasin Ketenoglu -v- Turkey 29360/95; [2001] ECHR 539 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Yalgin -v- Turkey 31892/96; [2001] ECHR 552; [2001] ECHR 556 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gulsen And Halil Yasin Ketenoglu -v- Turkey 29361/95; [2001] ECHR 543; 29360/95 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Tamkoc -v- Turkey 31881/96; [2001] ECHR 550; [2001] ECHR 554 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Selcuk Yildirim -v- Turkey 30451/96; [2001] ECHR 549; [2001] ECHR 553 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gunes -v- Turkey 31893/96; [2001] ECHR 540; [2001] ECHR 544 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sahin -v- Turkey 31961/96; [2001] ECHR 547; [2001] ECHR 551 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kiziloz -v- Turkey 32962/96; [2001] ECHR 543; [2001] ECHR 547 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mehmet Ali Yilmaz -v- Turkey 29286/95; [2001] ECHR 544; [2001] ECHR 548 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yakis -v- Turkey 33368/96; [2001] ECHR 551; [2001] ECHR 555 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fikret Dogan -v- Turkey 33363/96; [2001] ECHR 537; [2001] ECHR 541 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arap Yalgin And Others -v- Turkey 33370/96; [2001] ECHR 534; [2001] ECHR 538 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Goktas Et Autres -c- Turquie 31787/96; [2001] ECHR 538; [2001] ECHR 542 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â PG and JH -v- The United Kingdom Times, 19 October 2001; 44787/98; [2001] ECHR 550; [2001] ECHR 44787/98; ECHR 2001 IX 25 Sep 2001 ECHR J-P. Costa, President, and Judges W. Fuhrmann, P. Kuris, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza and K. Traja Section Registrar S. Doll Human Rights, Human Rights, Police The use of covert listening devices within a police station was an infringement of the right to privacy, since there was no system of law regulating such practices. That need not affect the right to a fair trial. The prosecution had a duty to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence. In this case the material which the prosecution sought to keep secret had not been relied upon in evidence, and the witness whom the defence had wished to cross examine had been examined by the judge in private. Voice samples which had been obtained without consent and were used to link recordings were to be treated in ways similar to other samples such as blood and hair and other objective physical samples. "The Court also notes that the material which was not disclosed in the present case formed no part of the prosecution case whatever, and was never put to the jury. The fact that the need for disclosure was at all times under assessment by the trial judge provided a further, important safeguard in that it was his duty to monitor throughout the trial the fairness or otherwise of the evidence being withheld. It has not been suggested that the judge was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 §1. He was fully versed in all the evidence and issues in the case and in a position to monitor the relevance to the defence of the withheld information both before and during the trial". A person who walks a public street will be visible to any public present and, in the same way, to a security guard viewing the scene through closed circuit television, but private life considerations may arise once any systematic or permanent record comes into existence of such material from the public domain. As to the scope of Article 8: "Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. The Court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8. The Article also protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish relationships with other human beings and the outside world…..There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of "private life." There are a number of elements relevant to a consideration of whether a person's private life is concerned in measures effected outside a person's home or private premises. Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person's reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, though not necessarily conclusive, factor. A person who walks down the street will, inevitably, be visible to any member of the public who is also present. Monitoring by technological means of the same public scene (for example a security guard viewing through closed circuit television) is of a similar character…" European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Isci -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 542; 31849/96; [2001] ECHR 546 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Yildirim And Others -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 553; 37191/97; [2001] ECHR 557 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ari -v- Turkey 29281/95; [2001] ECHR 535; [2001] ECHR 539 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ercan -v- Turkey [2001] ECHR 536; 31246/96; [2001] ECHR 540 25 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hirvisaari -v- Finland 49684/99; (2004) 38 EHRR 7; [2001] ECHR 559 27 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights Article 6 guarantees a duty to provide adequate reasons for an authority's decision. It is only by giving a reasoned decision that there can be public scrutiny of the administration of justice. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Nascimento -v- Portugal [2001] ECHR 557; 42918/98; [2001] ECHR 561 27 Sep 2001 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 Gunay Et Autres -c- Turquie 31850/96; [2001] ECHR 554; [2001] ECHR 558 27 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jesus Mafra -c- Portugal 43684/98; [2001] ECHR 556; [2001] ECHR 560 27 Sep 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (L and Others) -v- Manchester City Council, Regina (R and Another) -v- Same Times, 10 December 2001; [2002] Fam Law 13; [2001] EWHC 707 (Admin); [2002] 1 FLR 43; [2002] ACD 45; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 268 28 Sep 2001 QBD Mr Justice Munby Family, Children, Local Government, Human Rights, Local Government The council had a policy under which the financial assistance it gave to short term foster carers who were relatives of the children involved was rather less than would be given to non-family carers. The policy was challenged as unreasonable. Held: The policy which imposed arbitrary financial limits was unreasonable, and would inevitably conflict with the duty to look to the child's welfare. The policy operated to discriminate against family members and therefore infringed their human rights under the convention Children Act 1989 22(3)(a) - European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Shayler; CACD 28-Sep-2001 - Times, 10 October 2001; Gazette, 18 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1977; [2001] 1 WLR 2206 Â Â Farrakhan -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 1-Oct-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 781 Â G.B. -v- France 44069/98; [2001] ECHR 560; [2001] ECHR 564 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Akbay -c- Turquie 32598/96; [2001] ECHR 558; [2001] ECHR 562 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Hatton and Others -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 2-Oct-2001 - 36022/97; Times, 08 October 2001; [2001] ECHR 561; [2003] ECHR 338; (2003) 37 EHRR 611; [2001] ECHR 565; [2000] ECHR 709 Â Bijl -v- The General Medical Council Times, 24 October 2001; [2001] UKPC 41; Appeal No 78 of 2000 2 Oct 2001 PC Lord Hoffmann, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Clyde, Lord Hoffmann Health Professions, Human Rights (Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The appellant appealed an order removing him from the register. The board will not usually be in a position to assess the disciplinary issues heard by the Committee. In this case there were findings of serious failings by the Respondent, but some four years later, he had been able to work without complaint, and in the circumstances, removal from the register was not necessary. 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stankov And The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden -v- Bulgaria 29221/95; 29225/95; [2001] ECHR 563 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed; Violation of Art. 11; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings "Freedom of assembly and the right to express one's views through it are among the paramount values of a democratic society. The essence of democracy is its capacity to resolve problems through open debate. Sweeping measures of a preventive nature to suppress freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles - however shocking and unacceptable certain views or words used may appear to the authorities, and however illegitimate the demands made may be - do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it." European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kounounis -v- Cyprus [2001] ECHR 562; 37943/97; [2001] ECHR 566 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Duyonov And Others -v- The United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 559; 36670/97; [2001] ECHR 563 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pichon And Sajous -v- France 49853/99 - Admissibility Decision; [2001] ECHR 898 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Health Professions, Ecclesiastical Three women had been refused the supply of contraceptives prescribed for hem by their doctors by the claimant pharmacists, who were later found to have infringed their duties of supply. The claimants had argued that they had the right to apply their ehical or relgious principles, but the court found that the contraceptives were not abortifacients allowing any such exemption. Held: The compliants were inadmissible: "as long as the sale of contraceptives is legal and occurs on medical prescription nowhere other than in a pharmacy, the applicants cannot give precedence to their religious beliefs and impose them on others as justification for their refusal to sell such products, since they can manifest those beliefs in many ways outside the professional sphere." European Convention on Human Rights 9 [ Bailii ] Â Stankov And The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden -v- Bulgaria 29225/95; [2001] ECHR 567; 29221/95 2 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Bejer -c- Pologne 38328/97; [2001] ECHR 564; [2001] ECHR 569 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Branquinho Luis -c- Portugal 45348/99; [2001] ECHR 565; [2001] ECHR 570 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Serlenga -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 579; 31927/96; [2001] ECHR 584 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baratas Dias -v- Portugal 44296/98; [2001] ECHR 568 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â I.M. -c- Grece 49281/99; [2001] ECHR 569; [2001] ECHR 574 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Musiani Dagnini -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 576; 33831/96; [2001] ECHR 581 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sit S R L -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 580; 32650/96; [2001] ECHR 585 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marinakos -c- Grece 49282/99; [2001] ECHR 573; [2001] ECHR 578 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tentori Montalto -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 581; 32648/96; [2001] ECHR 586 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Castello -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 566; 32645/96; [2001] ECHR 571 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Girolami Zurla -v- Italy 32404/96; [2001] ECHR 568; [2001] ECHR 573 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Jacome Allier -c- Portugal 44616/98; [2001] ECHR 572; [2001] ECHR 577 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Potocka And Others -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 578; 33776/96; [2001] ECHR 583 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to temporal limitation on jurisdiction; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to scope of jurisdiction [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pini And Bini -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 577; 31929/96; [2001] ECHR 582 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Costa -c- Portugal 44135/98; [2001] ECHR 567; [2001] ECHR 572 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Micucci -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 575; 31922/96; [2001] ECHR 580 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Immobiliare Anba -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 571; 31916/96; [2001] ECHR 576 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barone -v- Italy [2001] ECHR 574; 30968/96; [2001] ECHR 579 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ilowiecki -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 570; 27504/95; [2001] ECHR 575 4 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (on the Application of Hamid Ali Husain) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 15 November 2001; 2001] EWHC Admin 852; CO/105/2001 5 Oct 2001 QBD Mr Justice Stanley Burnton Immigration, Human Rights, Benefits New regulations created a system under which applicants for asylum could be deprived of all benefits on the decision of an asylum support adjudicator. That person was appointed by the Home Secretary, and it was alleged was not impartial. It was argued that the system was dispensing discretionary benefits, and not rights, and that a withdrawal of those benefits was not an interference with rights. Making the benefit discretionary was deliberate, but involved a degree of unreality. The applicant had a right to have his appeal heard by someone independent of the Secretary of State. The tribunals were established by law as required. Whilst it would be preferable fro a different department to be responsible for the appointments, the system retained sufficient impartiality. Courts should lean against accepting judicial review as a substitute for the independence of tribunals. In this case the asylum seeker had had his support withdrawn after an allegation of assault. However under the licence agreement that support was to be withdrawn only in case of misuse of the premises. One such an assault was not capable of being misuse. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 - Asylum Support Regulations 2000 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Edward William Moore, William Samuel Kerr, Asad Haroon Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 01 November 2001 5 Oct 2001 CACD Rose LJ, Bell J, Stanley Burnton J Crime, Human Rights, Health The applicants challenged the procedures under which, having been found unfit to plead by proceedings under the section, they were then found to have committed the acts forming the offences. The defendants were unable to put forward any case in rebuttal. Applications to stay proceedings as an abuse of process had failed. Were such proceedings criminal proceedings. Not all proceedings which might result in a deprivation of liberty were criminal proceedings. Proceedings under sections 4 and 4A also did not constitute criminal proceedings. The complaint that the inability to defend themselves made a trial unfair confused the rights under the convention with the ability to exercise those rights. The latter could not be guaranteed by any convention. What is a fair hearing varies with the situation. Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(1) - European Convention on Human Rights - Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 1 Cites Â Stephen Craven -v- Secretary of State, and the Parole Board 5 Oct 2001 QBD The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton Prisons, Human Rights The applicant was serving life imprisonment for murder. He had been released on licence subject to a condition excluding him from the Newcastle area. He claimed this condition was unlawful. The applicant's own family connections were within the area from which he was excluded. He claimed the condition was imposed for questions of public acceptability, and infringed his right to family life. An interference with those rights required justification. The interference was according to law. The need to respect the feelings of victims is appropriate. The original exclusion zone was not thought out properly, but the second was. The exclusion zone condition was proportionate and valid. Criminal Justice Act 1991 Part II - Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 69 1 Cites Â Regina (Imtiaz Amin) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 719; [2002] 3 WLR 505 5 Oct 2001 QBD Mr Justice Hooper Coroners, Prisons, Human Rights An Asian youth was placed in a cell with another who was well known to be violent and racist. He was bludgeoned to death. The family sought a public investigation into how he came to be placed in such a position. An investigation had been refused by the Home Office. The family claimed, under the Human Rights Act, a right to have the matter determined. Investigations by the Coroner, and the Commission for Racial Equality would be limited. Contrary to what the Home Office said, the trial had done nothing to establish how the decision was made to put the two together. There had been an investigation which rejected the possibility of criminal action against the Prison Service. This was not public. An internal Prisons Service enquiry left several questions outstanding. Article 2 imposed a duty to protect life, and investigate a failure to do so. That investigation must be independent, effective, reasonably prompt, allow public scrutiny, and involve next of kin. That had not been satisfied. A declaration was granted requiring the Home Office to conduct such an investigation. European Convention on Human Rights Art 2 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Clarke -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 09 November 2001 9 Oct 2001 QBD Burton J Discrimination, Human Rights, Housing, Planning When assessing whether a gypsy should be granted planning permission to park his caravan on a site, the authority could not take into account the fact that he had earlier refused an offer of permanent housing, where acceptance of that offer would have been contrary to the applicant's traditional way of life. The appellant and his family were Romanies who lead a nomadic way of life. The Inspector should consider whether: he lived in a caravan; he was a Romany; he was nomadic for a substantial part of the year; the itinerancy was linked to his livelihood; and he had an aversion to conventional housing. European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 and 14 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Â Schweighofer And Others -v- Austria 35673/97; 35674/97 9 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings 35673/97; 35674/97; 36082/97; 37579/97 Â Schweighofer And Others -v- Austria 36082/97; [2001] ECHR 588; 35673/97; 35674/97 9 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Parege -v- France 40868/98; [2001] ECHR 587 9 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Sommerfeld -v- Germany 31871/96; (2001) 36 EHRR 565; [2002] 1 FLR 119 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 14+8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Hoffmann -v- Germany [2001] ECHR 584; 34045/96; [2001] ECHR 591 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 14+8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sahin -v- Germany 30943/96; (2001) 36 EHRR 765; [2002] 1 FLR 119 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Adoption When considering the issues of an adoption against the wishes of the parents, there is an apparent difference of emphasis between saying that the child's interests are of "paramount importance", and saying that they merely "may, depending on their nature and seriousness" override those of the parents: "The Court further recalls that a fair balance must be struck between the interests of the child and those of the parent and that in doing so particular importance must be attached to the best interests of the child which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent. In particular the parent cannot be entitled under article 8 of the Convention to have such measures taken as would harm the child's health and development." European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers Â H T -v- Germany 38073/97; [2001] ECHR 583; [2001] ECHR 590 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Diaz Aparicio -c- Espagne 49468/99; [2001] ECHR 582; [2001] ECHR 589 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kalantari -v- Germany 51342/99; [2001] ECHR 585; [2001] ECHR 592 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rodriguez Valin -c- Espagne 47792/99; [2001] ECHR 586; [2001] ECHR 593 11 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Dimsey [2001] UKHL 46 11 Oct 2001 HL Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Scott of Foscote Taxes Management, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Human Rights The defendant provided financial services, including the provision of offshore companies for a co-defendant. They were used to secrete assets abroad. Misleading information was provided to the revenue by the applicant and others. They were charged with conspiracy. Only one charge remained effective, but it was argued that since, under s 739(2) that income was deemed, in any event, to be that of one of the defendants, but the case had been presented on the basis that it was the income of the companies which had been hidden. If the presumption against double taxation applied, it was not also the income of the company, and the prosecution failed. The Act contained separate definitions of Income Tax Acts and Corporation Tax Acts, and it was counter-argued that deeming provisions for the one, did not exclude the other. No such distinction could apply in this section. The double taxation possibility remained theoretical. The revenue was left with a choice as to how the income might be treated and taxed. That was argued to be a breach of the human right to enjoy one's goods free of interference from the State. That discretion was held to be within the State's margin of appreciation. The companies were liable to corporation tax, and the conviction stood. Finance Act 1936 36 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 739 746 1 Cites [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Allen; HL 11-Oct-2001 - [2001] UKHL 45; [2002] 1 AC 509; [2002] HRLR 4; [2001] 4 All ER 768; [2001] STC 1537; 4 ITL Rep 140; [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 18; [2001] BTC 421; [2001] STI 134 Â Â Uratemp Ventures Limited -v- Collins; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 18 October 2001; Gazette, 25 October 2001; [2001] UKHL 43; [2002] 1 AC 301; [2002] 1 All ER 46; [2001] 3 WLR 806; [2001] All ER (D) 154; [2002] RVR 162; [2002] L & TR 15; [2002] 1 P & CR DG15; [2001] 3 EGLR 93; [2001] Hous LR 133 Â Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Avery Times, 08 November 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 784 11 Oct 2001 QBD Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Newman Police, Human Rights The case concerned an appeal following a demonstration. The Chief constable had made an order under section 60, anticipating serious violence. The respondent wore a mask, and the officer reached out to remove it. She hit out and broke his glasses. He did nothing to identify himself or the purpose of his action. Magistrates decided he had failed to comply with the PACE requirements before his action. Held: The new section is a significant interference with the civil liberties of the citizen. However the request to remove the mask is explanation enough of its purpose. Parliament had considered these issues and set out the powers it required. The prosecution's appeal was allowed. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 60 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Porter, Searle and Others, Berry & Harty -v- South Buckinghamshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Wrexham County Borough Council, Hertsmere Borough Councilt Gazette, 29 November 2001; Times, 09 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1549; [2002] 1 WLR 1359 12 Oct 2001 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson And Lord Justice Tuckey Planning, Human Rights, Housing Local authorities had obtained injunctions preventing the defendants from taking up occupation, where they had acquired land with a view to living on the plots in mobile homes, but where planning permission had been refused. The various defendants appealed on the basis that the authorities had failed to make proper allowance for their human rights. Held: Some of the appeals succeeded, because the planning authority had to consider the defendants human rights before acting, and they had not done so. They had to be satisfied that the legitimate aim of protecting the environment outweighed the gypsies' right to respect for private and family life. Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 187B 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A -v- The Scottish Ministers Times, 29 October 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1460; [2001] UKPC D5; [2003] 2 AC 602; [2002] UKHRR 1; [2002] HRLR 6; 2001 SLT 1331; 2002 SC (PC) 63; 2001 GWD 33-1312 15 Oct 2001 PC Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton and Lord Scott of Foscote Scotland, Health, Human Rights (Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate contravention of that person's human rights. Article 5(1) made no reference either to the purpose of detention, or any requirement that the condition should be susceptible to treatment, even though it made explicit exceptions. There was nothing in the Convention which gave the rights of the detainee who was a danger to society a priority over the rights of other citizens to live in peace and security. The Convention exists to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of each and every individual. Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 1 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 5(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â O'Hara -v- The United Kingdom Times, 13 November 2001; [2001] ECHR 591; 37555/97; [2001] ECHR 598 16 Oct 2001 ECHR J-P Costa, President, and Judges L. Loucaides, P. Kuris, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, Sir Nicolas Bratza and H. S. Greve Section Registrar S. Dollé Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award The applicant had been arrested and interviewed for over six days, before being released without charge. The reasonableness of the suspicion on which an arrest had to be based formed an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention, and terrorist investigations were particularly difficult. The suspicion against the applicant reached the required level being based on specific information that he was involved in the murder and the deprivation of his liberty was to confirm or dispel that suspicion. The delay in bringing him before a court was a breach of his rights. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â McLellan -v- Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council -v- Benfield and Another; CA 16-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 29 November 2001; Times, 03 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1510; [2002] QB 1129; [2002] LGR 191 Â Einhorn -v- France 71555/01; [2001] ECHR 893 16 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Extradition The applicant had resisted extradition from France: " … the Court reiterates that it cannot be ruled out that an issue might exceptionally be raised under article 6 of the Convention by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting country (see the Soering judgment cited above, p 45, § 113, and, mutatis mutandis, the Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no 240, p 34, para 110)." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Brennan -v- The United Kingdom Times, 22 October 2001; 39846/98; (2002) 34 EHRR 18; [2002] Crim LR 216; [2001] ECHR 596; [2001] Po LR 387; [2011] ECHR 2271 16 Oct 2001 ECHR JP Costa, President and Judges W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, H. S. Greve, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dollé Human Rights The applicant had complained that, after his arrest he had been refused adequate access to a lawyer. He had not been allowed to see his solicitor for two days, and only then in the presence of a police officer. No inferences had been drawn from his silence in the period before access to his lawyer, and therefore no detriment was shown because of the delay. The applicant was also protected in several ways in the adversarial system from that delay. However, if a lawyer is unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without surveillance, his assistance would lose its usefulness. The Convention guarantees rights that were practical and effective. Though jurisprudence indicated that such rights could be restricted for good cause, the manner of the officer's presence did infringe his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights under art 6.1 Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Eliazer -v- The Netherlands [2001] ECHR 590; 38055/97; (2001) 37 EHRR 892; [2001] ECHR 597 16 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights The Court dismissed an application from a person who had been convicted in absentia on an appeal and refused a hearing by the Netherlands Supreme Court because no appeal lay against proceedings in absentia: "The Court recalls that the right to a court guaranteed by article 6 of the Convention, of which the right of access is one aspect, is not absolute. It may be subject to limitations, particularly regarding the conditions of admissibility of an appeal. However, these limitations must not restrict exercise of the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. They must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. In addition, the compatibility of limitations under domestic law with the right of access to a court guaranteed by article 6 of the Convention will depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the whole of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order as well as the functions exercised by a court of cassation whose admissibility requirements are entitled to be more rigorous than those of an ordinary appeal court." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kulakova -c- Lettonie 50108/99; [2001] ECHR 593; [2001] ECHR 600 18 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Abacha, Bagudu -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Federal Republic of Nigeria Interested Party [2001] EWHC Admin 787 18 Oct 2001 QBD The Right Honourable Lord Justice TuckeyCriminal Practice, Human Rights Attempts were being made by the Federal Government of Nigeria to recover moneys alleged to have been taken fraudulently from the state. They sought assistance from the UK, and the claimants sought details of that request. The statute provided that assistance should be confidential. The claimants asserted that since the fact of the request had been made public, the contents should be also in order to remedy a procedural unfairness. The request complied with the statutory requirements, and had to be accepted. No criminal proceedings were to follow. The court rejected the assertion of unfairness. It was important not to allow international requests of this nature not to be abused, but there was no requirement on the Secretary of State to seek any undertaking as to the use of material obtained, and any question of abuse was for the courts of the country concerned. Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Pretty) -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners Times, 23 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 788 18 Oct 2001 Admn Lord Justice Tuckey, Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice Silber Criminal Practice, Constitutional, Human Rights The function of the Director's office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act could not be re-interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act to protect a right of life. There is a direct conflict between the right of life, and the right to protect a body. The Convention protects life and the dignity of life, but does not protect any right to procure one's own death or confer a right to die. The right to the dignity of life was not a right to die with dignity, but rather a right to live, with as much dignity as could possibly be afforded, until that life reached its natural end. Suicide Act 1961 2(1) 2(4) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mianowicz -c- Allemagne 42505/98; [2001] ECHR 594; [2001] ECHR 601 18 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sciortino -v- Italy 30127/96; [2001] ECHR 595; 30127/96; [2001] ECHR 602 18 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Indelicato -v- Italy 31143/96; [2001] ECHR 592; 31143/96; [2001] ECHR 599 18 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 as regards the allegations of ill-treatment; Violation of Art. 3 on account of the investigations; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Secretary of State for the Home Department -v- Saadi, Maged, Osman, Mohammed Times, 22 October 2001; Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1512; [2002] 1 WLR 356 19 Oct 2001 CA Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Waller Immigration, Human Rights The Secretary appealed against a decision that the detention of certain asylum applicants was unlawful. The detention was for a limited period, but he had put forward no reason for the detentions of the individuals. Held: The Act authorised detention up to the point where a decision was made. The Act empowered detention not for the purpose of examination or for the purpose of deciding whether to give or refuse leave to enter, but pending those events. It was simply to prevent a person entering without leave. The court doubted that detention was necessary to ensure effective and speedy processing of asylum applications, but that was speculation. It was impossible to condemn as irrational the subjection of those asylum seekers whose applications might be rapidly resolved to short-term of detention to ensure that the regime operated without dislocation. Article 5.1(f) recognised the state's right to prevent unauthorised admission by detaining the person seeking to enter. Lord Phillips MR said that lawful exercise of statutory powers can be restricted, according to established principles of public law, by government policy and the legitimate expectation to which such policy gives rise. Immigration Act 1971 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â MGN Ltd -v- Attard Unreported, 19 October 2001 19 Oct 2001 Connell J Media, Human Rights Complaint was made about the publication of photographs of the survivor of conjoined twins who was only one year old. The photographs were taken in a street in Malta but followed the earlier publication of photographs and press articles based on interviews which the child's parents gave in order to raise money for her care. Held: The photograph constituted at most a minimal breach of the right to privacy given the innocuous nature of the photographs and the fact that they would not enable the reader to make a subsequent identification of the child. The court doubted whether Article. 8 was engaged at all given the public nature of the area where they were taken. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers Â Regina (SR) -v- Nottingham Magistrates' Court [2001] EWHC Admin 802 19 Oct 2001 QBD Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Newman Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Children, Discrimination The applicant SR, aged 15, was remanded in custody to a Youth Offenders Institution pending sentence. Had he been a girl, he could not have been so remanded, since no similar provision was available for them. He complained that the law infringed his human rights. It was accepted that he was properly dealt with under the rules. For Art 14, a difference is discriminatory if it 'has no objective and reasonable justification', that is, it pursues no 'legitimate aim' or if there is no 'reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means and the aim to be realised'. The court refused the declaration of incompatibility requested, but ordered that the committal to custody had been wrong. Crime and Disorder Act 1998 98 - European Convention on Human Rights art 14 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Wilkinson) -v- Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1545; [2002] 1 WLR 419; Times, 02 November 2001; (2002) Lloyd's Rep Med 41; (2002) UKHRR 390; (2002) 65 BMLR 15 22 Oct 2001 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke and Lady Justice Hale Health, Human Rights, Administrative A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD. Held: Where a mental patient sought to challenge by judicial review the imposition of treatment without his consent, it was open to the court to investigate the merits of the decision to impose treatment, and it was not restricted to testing the reasonableness of the decision. This would include the power of the court to require the attendance and examination of medical witnesses. Had the patient proceeded by way of a claim for damages for assault that power would have existed. If the patient's human rights were to be respected, an investigation of the merits must be allowed. Mental Health Act 1983 58(3)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kurt Ebanks V The United Kingdom 36822/06; [2001] ECHR 183; [2010] ECHR 63 22 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â E.I. -c- Italie 48422/99; [2001] ECHR 609; [2001] ECHR 616 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mole -c- Italie 48417/99; [2001] ECHR 619; [2001] ECHR 626 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Minici -c- Italie 48403/99; [2001] ECHR 618; [2001] ECHR 625 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â L. -c- Italie 44515/98; [2001] ECHR 616; [2001] ECHR 623 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lucio Mario Catillo -c- Italie 48405/99; [2001] ECHR 617; [2001] ECHR 624 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Aresu -c- Italie 44628/98; [2001] ECHR 598; [2001] ECHR 605 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iezzi Et Cerritelli -c- Italie 44514/98; [2001] ECHR 615; [2001] ECHR 622 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Greco -c- Italie 44512/98; [2001] ECHR 613; [2001] ECHR 620 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gusso Et Grasso -c- Italie 44502/98; [2001] ECHR 614; [2001] ECHR 621 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Efisio Pisano -c- Italie 48420/99; [2001] ECHR 610; [2001] ECHR 617 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ar.M. -c- Italie 48412/99; [2001] ECHR 597; [2001] ECHR 604 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tartaglia -c- Italie 48402/99; [2001] ECHR 629; [2001] ECHR 636 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stefanucci -c- Italie 48406/99; [2001] ECHR 628; [2001] ECHR 635 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G. Et C.C. -c- Italie 44510/98; [2001] ECHR 611; [2001] ECHR 618 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Altomonte -c- Italie 48421/99; [2001] ECHR 596; [2001] ECHR 603 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Calo -c- Italie 48408/99; [2001] ECHR 600; [2001] ECHR 607 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Buonocore -c- Italie 48419/99; [2001] ECHR 599; [2001] ECHR 606 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scannella -c- Italie 44489/98; [2001] ECHR 625; [2001] ECHR 632 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Taylor (Paul Simon) Times, 15 November 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001 23 Oct 2001 CACD Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Davis and Sir Richard Tucker Crime, Human Rights The laws against the misuse of cannabis did not infringe the defendant's human rights to freedom of religion. The defendant asserted that his use of cannabis was in accordance with the exercise of his Rastafarian religion. In the light of international convention, it could be seen that the control of the use of marijuana could be a proper and necessary limitation of the rights of the individual. European Convention on Human Rights Art 9.1 - Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 - United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 Â Reino -c- Italie 48409/99; [2001] ECHR 624; [2001] ECHR 631 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ragas -c- Italie 44524/98; [2001] ECHR 623; [2002] ECHR 813; [2001] ECHR 630; [2002] ECHR 819 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R.P. Et Autres -c- Italie 44526/98; [2001] ECHR 622; [2001] ECHR 629 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Siena -c- Italie 48415/99; [2001] ECHR 626; [2001] ECHR 633 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cesaro -c- Italie 48418/99; [2001] ECHR 604; [2001] ECHR 611 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dragonetti -c- Italie 48404/99; [2001] ECHR 608; [2001] ECHR 615 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D.I. -c- Italie 44533/98; [2001] ECHR 607; [2001] ECHR 614 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carrone -c- Italie 44516/98; [2001] ECHR 603; [2001] ECHR 610 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pezzuto -c- Italie 44529/98; [2001] ECHR 621; [2001] ECHR 628 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Campana -c- Italie 48423/99; [2001] ECHR 601; [2001] ECHR 608 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tozzi -c- Italie 48410/99; [2001] ECHR 630; [2001] ECHR 637 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carlucci -c- Italie 48414/99; [2001] ECHR 602; [2001] ECHR 609 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Colacrai -c- Italie 44532/98; [2001] ECHR 605; [2001] ECHR 612 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Morese -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 48413/99; [2001] ECHR 620; [2001] ECHR 627 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Corcelli -c- Italie 48416/99; [2001] ECHR 606; [2001] ECHR 613 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Squillante -c- Italie 44503/98; [2001] ECHR 627; [2001] ECHR 634 23 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Servodidio -c- Italie 44402/98; [2001] ECHR 705; [2001] ECHR 712 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F.C. Et F.G. -c- Italie 44523/98; [2001] ECHR 658; [2001] ECHR 664 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spera -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44487/98; [2001] ECHR 707; [2001] ECHR 714 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Simine -c- Italie 44455/98; [2001] ECHR 651; [2001] ECHR 657 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Fabio -c- Italie 49355/99; [2001] ECHR 652; [2001] ECHR 658 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Francesco -c- Italie 44495/98; [2001] ECHR 653; [2001] ECHR 659 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Girolamo Et Autres -c- Italie 44446/98; [2001] ECHR 654; [2001] ECHR 660 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Santis -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 49366/99; [2001] ECHR 649; [2001] ECHR 655 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â E.G. -c- Italie 44480/98; [2001] ECHR 656; [2001] ECHR 662 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Pilla -c- Italie 49372/99; [2001] ECHR 648; [2001] ECHR 695 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferrari -c- Italie (No 176; 2) 44525/98; [2001] ECHR 659; [2001] ECHR 665 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Finessi -c- Italie 44379/98; [2001] ECHR 660; [2001] ECHR 666 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Follo -c- Italie 44424/98; [2001] ECHR 661; [2001] ECHR 667 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Franco -c- Italie 49373/99; [2001] ECHR 662; [2001] ECHR 668 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.C. -c- Italie 44441/98; [2001] ECHR 663; [2001] ECHR 669 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.F. Et Autres -c- Italie 44522/98; [2001] ECHR 664; [2001] ECHR 670 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Di Sisto -c- Italie 44414/98; [2001] ECHR 655; [2001] ECHR 661 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bini -c- Italie 49358/99; [2001] ECHR 640; [2001] ECHR 647 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Am.M. Et S.I. -c- Italie 49353/99; [2001] ECHR 633; [2001] ECHR 640 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ascolinio -c- Italie 44469/98; [2001] ECHR 634; [2001] ECHR 641 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Atzori -c- Italie 44456/98; [2001] ECHR 635; [2001] ECHR 642 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baldi -c- Italie 49362/99; [2001] ECHR 636; [2001] ECHR 643 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Barnaba -c- Italie 49377/99; [2001] ECHR 637; [2001] ECHR 644 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Santis -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 49367/99; [2001] ECHR 650; [2001] ECHR 656 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bartolini -c- Italie 44458/98; [2001] ECHR 639; [2001] ECHR 646 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guerrera -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 44403/98; [2001] ECHR 667; [2001] ECHR 673 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Castrogiovanni -c- Italie 44448/98; [2001] ECHR 641; [2001] ECHR 648 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Centineo -c- Italie 44377/98; [2001] ECHR 642; [2001] ECHR 649 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Chinnici -c- Italie 49374/99; [2001] ECHR 643; [2001] ECHR 650 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Coelho Alves -c- Portugal 46248/99; [2001] ECHR 644; [2001] ECHR 651 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Condominio Citta Di Prato -c- Italie 44460/98; [2001] ECHR 645; [2001] ECHR 652 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Consalvo -c- Italie 49375/99; [2001] ECHR 646; [2001] ECHR 653 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baroni Et Michinelli -c- Italie 49369/99; [2001] ECHR 638; [2001] ECHR 645 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Porcelli -c- Italie 44454/98; [2001] ECHR 691; [2001] ECHR 698 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Musti Et Iarossi -c- Italie 44507/98; [2001] ECHR 684; [2001] ECHR 690 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Napolitano -c- Italie 44415/98; [2001] ECHR 685; [2001] ECHR 691 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â O.B. -c- Italie 44506/98; [2001] ECHR 686; [2001] ECHR 692 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Paolelli -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44463/98; [2001] ECHR 687; [2001] ECHR 693 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pastore -c- Italie 44444/98; [2001] ECHR 688; [2001] ECHR 694 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Galasso -c- Italie 44421/98; [2001] ECHR 665; [2001] ECHR 671 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pomante Pappalepore -c- Italie 44499/98; [2001] ECHR 690; [2001] ECHR 697 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Massimo -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44352/98; [2001] ECHR 681; [2001] ECHR 687 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Quattrone -c- Italie 44412/98; [2001] ECHR 692; [2001] ECHR 699 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Raffa -c- Italie 44381/98; [2001] ECHR 693; [2001] ECHR 700 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rinaudo Et Autres -c- Italie 44345/98; [2001] ECHR 694; [2001] ECHR 701 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rizio -c- Italie 49357/99; [2001] ECHR 695; [2001] ECHR 702 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rizzo -c- Italie 44409/98; [2001] ECHR 696; [2001] ECHR 703 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rongoni -c- Italie 44531/98; [2001] ECHR 697; [2001] ECHR 704 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pires -c- Portugal 43654/98; [2001] ECHR 689; [2001] ECHR 696 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mantini -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44498/98; [2001] ECHR 675; [2001] ECHR 681 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rosetti E Ciucci &Amp; -c- C. Italie 44479/98; [2001] ECHR 699; [2001] ECHR 706 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guerrera -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44423/98; [2001] ECHR 668; [2001] ECHR 674 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I.P.E.A. S.R.L. -c- Italie 44418/98; [2001] ECHR 669; [2001] ECHR 675 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iacovelli -c- Italie 44530/98; [2001] ECHR 670; [2001] ECHR 676 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iannetti -c- Italie 49359/99; [2001] ECHR 671; [2001] ECHR 677 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Il Messaggero S.A.S. -c- Italie (NÂ° 6) 44501/98; [2001] ECHR 672; [2001] ECHR 678 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Morelli Et Levantesi -c- Italie 49354/99; [2001] ECHR 683; [2001] ECHR 689 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lilla Santilli -c- Italie 49376/99; [2001] ECHR 674; [2001] ECHR 680 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mel Sud S.R.L. -c- Italie 44438/98; [2001] ECHR 682; [2001] ECHR 688 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcantoni -c- Italie 49370/99; [2001] ECHR 676; [2001] ECHR 682 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mari -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 49365/99; [2001] ECHR 677; [2001] ECHR 683 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marinelli -c- Italie 49364/99; [2001] ECHR 678; [2001] ECHR 684 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Masala -c- Italie 44496/98; [2001] ECHR 679; [2001] ECHR 685 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Massimo -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 44343/98; [2001] ECHR 680; [2001] ECHR 686 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Galgani Et De Matteis -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44497/98; [2001] ECHR 666; [2001] ECHR 672 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Il Messaggero S.A.S. -c- Italie (NÂ° 7) 44508/98; [2001] ECHR 673; [2001] ECHR 679 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Themudo Barata -c- Portugal (NÂ° 2) 46773/99; [2001] ECHR 709; [2001] ECHR 716 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Pine -v- Law Society; CA 25-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 04 January 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1574; [2002] 2 All ER 658; [2002] UKHRR 81 Â Alfonsetti -c- Italie 49371/99; [2001] ECHR 631; [2001] ECHR 638 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Alicino -c- Italie 44383/98; [2001] ECHR 632; [2001] ECHR 639 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Viola -c- Italie 44416/98; [2001] ECHR 717; [2002] ECHR 718; [2001] ECHR 724; [2002] ECHR 724 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Venturini -c- Italie (NÂ° 3) 44535/98; [2001] ECHR 716; [2001] ECHR 723 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Venturini -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44346/98; [2001] ECHR 715; [2001] ECHR 722 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Valvo Et Branca -c- Italie 44384/98; [2001] ECHR 714; [2001] ECHR 721 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Valenti -c- Italie 49356/99; [2001] ECHR 713; [2001] ECHR 720 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vairano -c- Italie 44459/98; [2001] ECHR 712; [2001] ECHR 719 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tiburzi -c- Grece 49222/99; [2001] ECHR 710; [2001] ECHR 717 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rosa -c- Italie 49361/99; [2001] ECHR 698; [2001] ECHR 705 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stefanini -c- Italie 44518/98; [2001] ECHR 708; [2001] ECHR 715 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Siper S.R.L. -c- Italie 44493/98; [2001] ECHR 706; [2001] ECHR 713 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â E H -v- Greece 42079/98; [2001] ECHR 657; 42079/98; [2001] ECHR 663 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Seminara -c- Italie 44467/98; [2001] ECHR 704; [2001] ECHR 711 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scarfone -c- Italie 44389/98; [2001] ECHR 703; [2001] ECHR 710 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Savanna Et La Selva -c- Italie 49368/99; [2001] ECHR 702; [2001] ECHR 709 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Salvi -c- Italie 49360/99; [2001] ECHR 701; [2001] ECHR 708 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Saggio -c- Italie 41879/98; [2001] ECHR 700; [2001] ECHR 707 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina -v- Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2000; HL 25-Oct-2001 - Times, 29 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 53; [2001] 1 WLR 2060; [2001] 4 All ER 897; [2002] 1 Cr App R 29; [2002] UKHRR 333; [2002] HRLR 8 Â Troiani -c- Italie 44478/98; [2001] ECHR 711; [2001] ECHR 718 25 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Petition of Andrew Scott and Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue Their Detention In Inhumane Prison Conditions [2001] ScotCS 242 26 Oct 2001 SCS Lord Johnston Scotland, Prisons, Constitutional, Human Rights Each applicant sought an interim order against the Scottish Minister with respect to their treatment in prison. It had been found that the conditions in Barlinnie Prison were inhumane. The Crown responded that the court had no jurisdiction to make such an order. Held: McDonald is binding on the court. An interim order could not be made. European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Court of Session Act 1988 45 1 Cites 1 Citers [ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Erdemli -v- Turkey 29495/95; [2001] ECHR 725; 29495/95; [2001] ECHR 732 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baspinar -v- Turkey 28280/95 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Burkev -v- Turkey 26480/95; [2001] ECHR 722; 26480/95; [2001] ECHR 729 30 Oct 2001 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 Burkev -v- Turkey 26480/95 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Devlin -v- The United Kingdom Times, 09 November 2001; 29545/95 30 Oct 2001 ECHR J.-P. Costa, President and Judges W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, F. Tulkens, Sir Nicolas Bratza, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dollé 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 National Security Certificates issued in Northern Ireland which had the effect of preventing his making a claim of discrimination, was disproportionate. The Act guaranteed person's a right not to be discriminated for religious belief or political opinion in the job market. That is a civil right. The government argued that since the post applied for was a civil service post, special rules applied. However the post applied for was at the lowest grade, and there had been no independent scrutiny provided, and no evidence given to the Fair Employment Tribunal. The court found a breach of the applicant's article 6 rights. European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 - Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 42 1 Cites Â Dunan -v- France 49342/99; [2001] ECHR 724; [2001] ECHR 731 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sousa Miranda -c- Portugal 43658/98; [2001] ECHR 744 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Adiyaman -v- Turkey 31880/96; [2001] ECHR 718; 31880/96; [2001] ECHR 725 30 Oct 2001 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 Adiyaman -v- Turkey 31880/96 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Karademir -v- Turkey 32990/96; [2001] ECHR 732; 32990/96; [2001] ECHR 739 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hasan Yagiz -v- Turkey 31834/96; [2001] ECHR 728; [2001] ECHR 735 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Inan -v- Turkey 39428/98; [2001] ECHR 729; 39428/98; [2001] ECHR 736 30 Oct 2001 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 Akyazi -v- Turkey 33362/96; [2001] ECHR 720; 33362/96; 33362/96; [2001] ECHR 727 30 Oct 2001 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 Keskin -v- Turkey 32987/96; [2001] ECHR 733; 32987/96; [2001] ECHR 740 30 Oct 2001 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 Pekdas -v- Turkey 31960/96; [2001] ECHR 735; 31960/96; [2001] ECHR 742 30 Oct 2001 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 Saki -v- Turkey 29359/95 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Kanbur -v- Turkey 28291/95; [2001] ECHR 731; 28291/95; [2001] ECHR 738 30 Oct 2001 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 Saki -v- Turkey 29359/95; [2001] ECHR 736; [2001] ECHR 743 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Devlin -v- The United Kingdom 29545/95; [2001] ECHR 723; 29545/95; [2001] ECHR 730 30 Oct 2001 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 Friends Provident Life & Pensions Limited -v- The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions & Others [2001] EWHC Admin 820; [2002] 1 WLR 1450 30 Oct 2001 Admn Forbes J Planning, Human Rights The application of the House of Lords' ruling in Alconbury that the exercise of the section 77 call in power was not after all incompatible with article 6, it was unsuccessfully argued instead that a refusal to call in a planning application under section 77 would necessarily be incompatible with article 6. Held: The obligation to call in a planning application to ensure compliance with article 6 would only arise in some cases, for example where there were significant issues of fact to be decided and because, therefore, the discretion remained largely intact, section 6 (2) (b) did not apply. European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Pannullo And Forte -v- France 37794/97; [2001] ECHR 734; [2001] ECHR 741 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Genc -v- Turkey 31891/96; [2001] ECHR 726; 31891/96; [2001] ECHR 733 30 Oct 2001 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 Kanbur -v- Turkey 28291/95 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Ivars -c- France 49350/99; [2001] ECHR 730; [2001] ECHR 737 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Genc -v- Turkey 31891/96 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Guelfucci -c- France 49352/99; [2001] ECHR 727; [2001] ECHR 734 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baspinar -v- Turkey 28280/95; 28280/95 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Baspinar -v- Turkey 29280/95; [2001] ECHR 721; [2001] ECHR 728 30 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Keskin -v- Turkey 32987/96 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Akcam -v- Turkey 32964/96; [2001] ECHR 719; [2001] ECHR 726 30 Oct 2001 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 Pekdas -v- Turkey 31960/96 30 Oct 2001 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 Â Solakov -v- The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia 47023/99; [2001] ECHR 738 31 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-d [ Bailii ] Â Solakov -v- The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia 47023/99; [2001] ECHR 745 31 Oct 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-d [ Bailii ] Â Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (in administrative receivership) -v- Clough Times, 01 November 2001; Gazette, 08 November 2001 1 Nov 2001 CA Brooke LJ, Waller LJ and Longmore LJ Litigation Practice, Human Rights A defendant to civil proceedings could not use the privilege against self-incrimination as a defence against an application for summary judgement, where his plea amounted to no more than a request to the court to prevent the other party relying upon information and material already in its possession. Where criminal proceedings were anticipated or uncompleted, a stay might be granted where the civil procedure would create a real risk of self-incrimination. Â Regina -v- Botmeh; Regina -v- Alami Times, 08 November 2001; Gazette, 29 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 2226 1 Nov 2001 CACD Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Goldring Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Crime In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing. Held: The procedures were available, and would not infringe the defendant's human rights. There was nothing in the Court of Human rights jurisprudence to say that admission of such new evidence at the Court of Appeal would infringe the defendant's right to a fair trial. The defence has no absolute right to disclosure of relevant evidence and that strictly necessary measures restricting the rights of the defence were permissible, provided they were counterbalanced by procedures followed by judicial authority. Crown Court (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) (Disclosure) Rules 1997 (SI 1997 No 698) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â I I , I S , K E And A O -v- Turkey 30953/96; 30954/96 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 30953/96; 30954/96; 30955/96; 30956/96 Â I.I., I.S., K.E. And A.O. -v- Turkey 30955/96; [2001] ECHR 748; 30953/96; 30954/96 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â The Christian Federation of Jehovah's Witnesses of France -v- France Unreported, 6 November 2001 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights (Non-admissibility Decision) It was affirmed: "that Article 34 of the Convention requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he alleges. That Article does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention; it does not permit individuals to complain against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention. In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment." However, a potential victim might yet qualify, but only on production of "reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him personally (would) occur; mere suspicion or conjecture (being) insufficient in this respect." European Convention on Human Rights 34 1 Citers Â Fermi Et Autres -c- Italie 44401/98; [2001] ECHR 740; [2001] ECHR 747 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â A.V. -c- Italie 44390/98; [2001] ECHR 739; [2001] ECHR 746 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I.I., I.S., K.E. And A.O. -v- Turkey 30953/96; [2001] ECHR 741 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â I I , I S , K E And A O -v- Turkey 30953/96; 30954/96 6 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) 30953/96; 30954/96; 30955/96; 30956/96 Â Nurcan Gungil V Turkey 28388/03; [2007] ECHR 1104; [2009] ECHR 443 7 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lynch -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWHC Admin 882 8 Nov 2001 Admn Pill LJ Poole J Crime, Human Rights The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention. Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires presumptions of fact or of law to be defined within reasonable limits. As Lord Bingham stated in Brown, there are no hard edged and inflexible statements of principle. A fair balance must be struck. That fair balance permits the existence of a reverse onus in the context of section 139 of the 1988 Act. Criminal Justice Act 1988 139 - Human Rights Act 1988 3 - European Convention of Human Rights 6 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Sari -c- Turquie Et Danemark 21889/93; [2001] ECHR 743; [2001] ECHR 750 8 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tuncay Et Ozlem Kaya -c- Turquie 31733/96; [2001] ECHR 744; [2001] ECHR 751 8 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Laumont -v- France 43626/98; [2001] ECHR 742; [2001] ECHR 749 8 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Slezevicius -v- Lithuania 55479/00 13 Nov 2001 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 Â Durand -c- France (No. 2) 42038/98; [2001] ECHR 745; [2001] ECHR 752 13 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same Times, 16 November 2001; Gazette, 06 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1698 13 Nov 2001 CA Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences carrying mandatory and discretionary life sentences. The decision as to what measure of deterrence was required was not solely a matter suitable for decisions by the courts, but included elements to be considered which looked to wider issues. The exercise of such powers with respect to discretionary lifers had been ruled unlawful. The legislation, following that decision, explicitly excluded tariffs for mandatory lifers, and it was not for the courts to set aside such decisions. The present system might not survive challenge in the Court of Human Rights, but it must be their decision Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 29 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Durand -v- France 41449/98; [2001] ECHR 753 13 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Francisco -v- France 38945/97 13 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Slezevicius -v- Lithuania 55479/00; [2001] ECHR 746; [2001] ECHR 755 13 Nov 2001 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 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Francisco -v- France 38945/97; [2001] ECHR 754 13 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] Â Nemec And Others -v- Slovakia 48672/99; [2001] ECHR 749; [2001] ECHR 758 15 Nov 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (on the Application of Bruno Quintavalle on Behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) -v- Secretary of State for Health; Admn 15-Nov-2001 - Times, 05 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 918; [2001] 4 All ER 1013 Â Werner -v- Poland 26760/95; [2001] ECHR 751; [2001] ECHR 760 15 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Williamson and Others) -v- Secretary of State for Education and Employment Times, 12 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 960; [2002] ELR 214 15 Nov 2001 Admn Justice Elias Education, Children, Human Rights A genuine religious belief which supported the use of corporal punishment in schools was not itself either a manifestation of religious belief which required protection under the convention, or a religious and philosophical conviction for the purposes of the right to education provisions of article 2. A religiously founded belief that corporal punishment should be imposed was not a philosophical or religious conviction. European Convention on Human Rights Art 2, 9 - Education Act 1996 548 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Warner -v- Poland Unreported, 15 November 2001; 26760/75 15 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers Â Cerin -v- Croatia 54727/00; [2001] ECHR 747; [2001] ECHR 756 15 Nov 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Iwanczuk -v- Poland (2001) 38 EHRR 148; 25196/94; [2001] ECHR 748; [2001] ECHR 757 15 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Prisons Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award The applicant was ordered to strip naked and was subjected to humiliating abuse by guards when he tried to exercise his right to vote in facilities provided in prison. His complaint of degrading treatment was upheld. European Convention on Human Rights 3 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nemec And Others -v- Slovakia 48672/99 15 Nov 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Cerin -v- Croatia 54727/00 15 Nov 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Olstowski -v- Poland 34052/96 15 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected Â Werner -v- Poland 26760/95 15 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Olstowski -v- Poland 34052/96; [2001] ECHR 750; [2001] ECHR 759 15 Nov 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brian Reid Beetson Robertson -v- City of Wakefield Metropolitan Council, Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) Times, 27 November 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 915; [2002] QB 1052 16 Nov 2001 Admn Mr Justice Maurice Kay Human Rights, Information, Elections The claimant requested the defendant authority to remove his details from the electoral register before it was sold on to third parties. They refused. He claimed that the information had been obtained from him under penalty of criminal charges, and that to sell it on was an interference with his right to a private and family life. Held: The sale of the material was in breach of the applicant's rights. Data from the registers was collected under force of law. The sale of the register affected electors as marketing targets and the interference with their private lives, exacerbated by technological advances, was both foreseeable and foreseen. The right to vote was lost if the information was not provided. European Directive 95/46/EC of October 24, 1995 (OJ 1995 L281/31) - Representation of the People Act 1983 - Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1081) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (A and Others) -v- Lord Saville of Newdigate and Others Times, 23 November 2001; Gazette, 14 December 2001 16 Nov 2001 QBD Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Sullivan Human Rights, Administrative When making a decision which would interfere with the human rights of an individual, and even where the risks from which protections was sought, could be seen as small, it was the duty of the decision maker to justify the interference. The individual was not to be called upon to prove the risk. Here the respondent was holding a major public inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. Parties wanted soldiers involved in the incident to appear in person. The soldiers asserted that they were at personal risk if they attended. The respondent ordered them to attend. It was held that the order requiring them to attend was to be set aside. The Osman test did not apply. The risk was not fanciful, and the decision that they could be adequately protected by the Security Services was a procedural unfairness. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â McElhinney -v- Ireland; Al-Adsani -v- United Kingdom; Fogarty -v- United Kingdom; ECHR 21-Nov-2001 - Times, 26 November 2001; 37112/97; 35763/97; 31253/96; 5763/97; [2001] 34 EHRR 302; [2001] ECHR 752; [2001] ECHR 753; [2001] ECHR 754; (2002) 34 EHRR 11; 35763/97; [2001] ECHR 761; [2001] ECHR 762; [2001] ECHR 763; (2001) 34 EHRR 273; 12 BHRC 88; (2002) 34 EHRR 12 Â Regina (Kashamu) -v- Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) -v- Bow Street Magistrates' Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) -v- Bow Street Magistrates' Court Times, 12 December 2001; Gazette, 01 February 2002; [2001] EWHC 980 (Admin); [2001] EWHC Admin 980; [2002] QB 887 23 Nov 2001 QBD Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Pitchford Extradition, Human Rights, Magistrates Where a magistrates' court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for the eventual court of trial to hear. Article 5 expressly required the lawfulness of a person's detention to be determined speedily by a court. The Magistrates' Court was the obvious and proper forum for this question. Existing case law which said that it was not for the Magistrates to decide whether the procedure as a whole was an abuse did not restrict this Human Rights power. Extradition Act 1989 11(3) Sch1 Para 6(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 5 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina (on the Application of Moiram Bibi) -v- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Housing Benefit Review Board [2001] EWHC Admin 967 27 Nov 2001 Admn Justice Newman Benefits, Housing, Human Rights The respondent board had refused to pay housing benefit on the basis that the claimant's tenancy was not run on a commercial basis. She asserted that they had not given her a fair opportunity to be heard. New regulations had changed the treatment of her situation, and the board had delayed its decision to her disadvantage. Held: The delay was short and not unfair. The factors relevant to assessing whether an agreement was on a commercial basis are not closed but include all the circumstances and particularly the absence of a rent book, that occupation had arisen at the instigation of the claimant, who was agent for the property, who entered it without consultation; and the absence of possession proceedings. Was the tribunal independent. It comprised councillors and council workers. There was no sound basis in this case for concluding that the appearance of a lack of independence and impartiality gave rise to a violation of article 6. Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1998 (1998 No.3257) - Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 130 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina (on the Application of Pretty) -v- Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 29-Nov-2001 - Times, 05 December 2001; [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] 1 AC 800; [2001] 3 WLR 1598; [2002] 2 Cr App R 1; [2002] 1 FCR 1; [2002] UKHRR 97; [2002] ACD 41; [2002] 1 All ER 1; [2002] 1 FLR 268; 11 BHRC 589; (2002) 63 BMLR 1; [2002] Fam Law 170; [2002] HRLR 10 Â Â Regina -v- Kansal (2); HL 29-Nov-2001 - Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] UKHL 62; [2001] 3 WLR 1562; [2002] 2 AC 69; [2002] 1 All ER 257; [2002] HRLR 9; [2002] BPIR 370; [2002] 1 Cr App R 36 Â Regina (Marais) -v- Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Times, 18 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002 30 Nov 2001 QBD Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Pitchford Extradition, Human Rights The process of extradition is not one itself involving the imposition of a criminal penalty, and therefore such proceedings were outside the ambit of the convention. The prisoner sought to challenge an extradition requested from South Africa, claiming an element of retrospectivity. The fact that at the time the offence was committed there was no extradition treaty wih South Africa did not create the situation where a heavier penalty was sought to be imposed than the penalty applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. European Convention on Human Rights art 5.1 - Extradition Act 1989 9 Â Bertini -v- Italy 32363/96; [2001] ECHR 756; [2001] ECHR 765 3 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Harrow -v- Qazi [2001] EWCA Civ 1834; [2002] HLR 276; [2001] EWCA Civ 1834 3 Dec 2001 CA Arden LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ Housing, Human Rights The applicant had been a joint tenant of the respondent. His co-tenant had terminated the tenancy. He now challenged the possession proceedings saying that they would deprive him of his home. Held: The appeal succeeded. The question before the court was "whether a former tenant whose tenancy has come to an end by operation of law can, after that time, have a right to a home for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention" The court rejected the argument that article 8 is not engaged where a former tenant lacks any legal or equitable right or interest in the house. European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bastreghi -v- Italy 33966/96; [2001] ECHR 755; [2001] ECHR 764 3 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Rizzi -v- Italy 31259/96; [2001] ECHR 758; [2001] ECHR 767 3 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caramanti -v- Italy 37242/97; [2001] ECHR 757; [2001] ECHR 766 3 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kanagasingham Kariharan, Kanagaratnam Koneswaran, and Mahendran Pabeendran -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 1004 5 Dec 2001 Admn Justice Stanley Burnton Immigration, Human Rights The claimants had applied for asylum, being Tamils from Sri Lanka. The applications had been rejected, and they sought to challenge the decisions to return them as a breach of their human rights. The new Act and transitional provisions created a new right of appeal, but the applicants fell outside the policy which added certain other categories. The Home Secretary said that the issues which might be raised by such an appeal were identical with those which had already been considered. The claimants asserted that different issues did arise, and that a legitimate expectation had been created. Held: The section creating the right of appeal was intended to refer to decisions 'in relation to that person’s entitlement to enter or remain', and not to decisions to remove. The restriction of the policy to decisions after a certain date was neither unlawful nor irrational. No legitimate expectation had been created and broken. The cases was rejected save as to the suggestion that differing issues arose. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65 - Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) - Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6, Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2000 (2000 No. 2444) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Quark Fishing Ltd., Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2001] EWHC Admin 1174 5 Dec 2001 Admn European, Human Rights, Constitutional [ Bailii ] Â Â International Transport Roth GmbH and Others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; QBD 5-Dec-2001 - Times, 11 December 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002 Â Ferraresi -c- Italie 44405/98; [2001] ECHR 775; [2001] ECHR 784 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Caracciolo -c- Italie 44382/98; [2001] ECHR 767; [2001] ECHR 776 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Fiorenza -c- Italie 44393/98; [2001] ECHR 777; [2001] ECHR 786 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Filosa -c- Italie 49317/99; [2001] ECHR 776; [2001] ECHR 785 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Delmonte Et Badano -c- Italie 44408/98; [2001] ECHR 774 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â D'Arrigo -c- Italie 49318/99; [2001] ECHR 773; [2001] ECHR 782 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â D'Amore -c- Italie 49307/99; [2001] ECHR 772; [2001] ECHR 781 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Crotti -c- Italie 49309/99; [2001] ECHR 771; [2001] ECHR 780 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Centi -c- Italie (NÂ° 2) 44432/98; [2001] ECHR 770; [2001] ECHR 779 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gemignani -c- Italie 47772/99; [2001] ECHR 779; [2001] ECHR 788 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cartoleria Poddighe S.N.C. -c- Italie 44399/98; [2001] ECHR 768; [2001] ECHR 777 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Grassi -c- Italie 44430/98; [2001] ECHR 780; [2001] ECHR 789 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Capri -c- Italie 49319/99; [2001] ECHR 766; [2001] ECHR 775 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C.A.I.F. -c- Italie 49302/99; [2001] ECHR 765; [2001] ECHR 774 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bonacci Et Autres -c- Italie 49313/99; [2001] ECHR 764; [2001] ECHR 773 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Besati -c- Italie 44388/98; [2001] ECHR 763; [2001] ECHR 772 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bazzoni -c- Italie 49315/99; [2001] ECHR 762; [2001] ECHR 771 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bagnetti Et Bellini -c- Italie 44433/98; [2001] ECHR 761; [2001] ECHR 770 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Armando Gatto -c- Italie 49304/99; [2001] ECHR 760; [2001] ECHR 769 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Albertosi -c- Italie 49316/99; [2001] ECHR 759; [2001] ECHR 768 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Centi -c- Italie (NÂ° 1) 44429/98; [2001] ECHR 769; [2001] ECHR 778 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Murru -c- Italie (NÂ° 4) 44386/98; [2001] ECHR 790; [2001] ECHR 799 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Delmonte And Badano -v- Italy 48525/99; [2001] ECHR 783; 44408/98 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â A Photis -v- Bruce, Dr J Heyes -v- Kmc International Search & Selection, The Department of Trade & Industry, KMC International Search & Selection, The Department of Trade & Industry, the Lord Chancellor's Department EAT/766/00; EAT/732/00 6 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Human Rights, Employment The case concerned the applicability of the race and disability discrimination law to appointments to statutory offices, particularly as to whether any remedy was provided for infringement. It was suggested that such appointments did not constitute employment. Held: The Act in section 64 made the distinction, and statutory appointments were not covered by the 1995 Act. Did such a system infringe the applicant's human rights in failing to provide a remedy? No European Law existed establishing disability discrimination as a wrong, and there was none outside the Act in English law. There was no infringement of a recognised right for the determination of which a fair trial had been refused. Similar arguments applied for the race discrimination claim. Whether this is appropriate or necessary is for Parliament to decide. EAT Jurisdiction - Disability Discrimination Act 1995 64(2) 68 - Race Relations Act 1976 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Â Tsironis -c- Grece 44584/98; [2001] ECHR 798; [2001] ECHR 807 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Steiner Et Hassid Steiner -c- Italie 49314/99; [2001] ECHR 797; [2001] ECHR 806 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stefania Palumbo -c- Italie 49310/99; [2001] ECHR 796; [2001] ECHR 805 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Silvestri -c- Italie 44400/98; [2001] ECHR 795; [2001] ECHR 804 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Servillo Et D'Ambrosio -c- Italie 49306/99; [2001] ECHR 794; [2001] ECHR 803 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Provide S.R.L. -c- Italie 49312/99; [2001] ECHR 793; [2001] ECHR 802 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gattuso -c- Italie 44342/98; [2001] ECHR 778; [2001] ECHR 787 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Onori -c- Italie 49320/99; [2001] ECHR 791; [2001] ECHR 800 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcello Troiani -v- Italy 41221/98; [2001] ECHR 785; [2001] ECHR 794 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mezzena -c- Italie 49311/99; [2001] ECHR 789; [2001] ECHR 798 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mazzacchera -c- Italie 49322/99; [2001] ECHR 788; [2001] ECHR 797 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mauti -c- Italie 44391/98; [2001] ECHR 787; [2001] ECHR 796 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Martins Serra Et Andrade Cancio -c- Portugal 43999/98; [2001] ECHR 786; [2001] ECHR 795 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M.I. Et E.I. -c- Italie 49305/99; [2001] ECHR 784; [2001] ECHR 793 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Guarnieri -c- Italie 49321/99; [2001] ECHR 783; [2001] ECHR 792 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Grisi -c- Italie 49303/99; [2001] ECHR 782; [2001] ECHR 791 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Grimaldi -c- Italie 49308/99; [2001] ECHR 781; [2001] ECHR 790 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Peda -c- Italie 49396/99; [2001] ECHR 792; [2001] ECHR 801 6 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â P. Et M.O. -c- Italie 51692/99; [2001] ECHR 833; [2001] ECHR 842 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Molinaris -c- Italie 51650/99; [2001] ECHR 831; [2001] ECHR 840 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giacomo Et Gianfranco Rota -c- Italie 51704/99; [2001] ECHR 820; [2001] ECHR 829 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gianbattista Rossi -c- Italie 51710/99; [2001] ECHR 821; [2001] ECHR 830 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Giuseppina Romano -c- Italie 48407/99; [2001] ECHR 822; [2001] ECHR 831 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I.M. -c- Italie 51708/99; [2001] ECHR 823; [2001] ECHR 832 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lagana -c- Italie 44520/98; [2001] ECHR 824; [2001] ECHR 833 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lopriore -c- Italie 51668/99; [2001] ECHR 825; [2001] ECHR 834 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mannari -c- Italie 51706/99; [2001] ECHR 826; [2001] ECHR 835 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mazzoleni Et Autres -c- Italie 51655/99; [2001] ECHR 827; [2001] ECHR 836 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Meneghini -c- Italie 51677/99; [2001] ECHR 828; [2001] ECHR 837 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Palys -v- Poland 51669/99; [2001] ECHR 834; [2001] ECHR 843 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â G.L. -c- Italie 51666/99; [2001] ECHR 818; [2001] ECHR 827 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Molek -c- Italie 51652/99; [2001] ECHR 830; [2001] ECHR 839 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ferfolja -c- Italie 51675/99; [2001] ECHR 817; [2001] ECHR 826 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â O.M. -c- Italie 51698/99; [2001] ECHR 832; [2001] ECHR 841 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pastrello -c- Italie 51657/99; [2001] ECHR 835; [2001] ECHR 844 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Perico -c- Italie 51699/99; [2001] ECHR 837; [2001] ECHR 846 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Piccinin -c- Italie 51697/99; [2001] ECHR 838; [2001] ECHR 847 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Plebani -c- Italie 51665/99; [2001] ECHR 839; [2001] ECHR 848 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Roberto Et Giuseppe Rota -c- Italie 51705/99; [2001] ECHR 840; [2001] ECHR 849 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Roccatagliata -c- Italie 51659/99; [2001] ECHR 841; [2001] ECHR 850 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Selva -c- Italie 51672/99; [2001] ECHR 842; [2001] ECHR 851 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sordelli Et -c- S.N.C. -c- Italie 51670/99; [2001] ECHR 843; [2001] ECHR 852 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Pelagagge -c- Italie 51700/99; [2001] ECHR 836; [2001] ECHR 845 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mezzetta -c- Italie 51654/99; [2001] ECHR 829; [2001] ECHR 838 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vanzetti -c- Italie 51707/99; [2001] ECHR 848; [2001] ECHR 857 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Allegri -c- Italie 51651/99; [2001] ECHR 800; [2001] ECHR 809 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Armando Grasso -c- Italie 48411/99; [2001] ECHR 801; [2003] ECHR 202; [2001] ECHR 810; [2003] ECHR 202 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Arrigoni -c- Italie 51671/99; [2001] ECHR 802; [2001] ECHR 811 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Baioni Et Badini -c- Italie 51678/99; [2001] ECHR 803; [2001] ECHR 812 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Beluzzi Et Mangili -c- Italie 51661/99; [2001] ECHR 804; [2001] ECHR 813 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bertot -c- Italie 51667/99; [2001] ECHR 805; [2001] ECHR 814 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Bettella -c- Italie 51695/99; [2001] ECHR 806; [2001] ECHR 815 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brivio -c- Italie 51660/99; [2001] ECHR 807; [2001] ECHR 816 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Butta -c- Italie 51682/99; [2001] ECHR 808; [2001] ECHR 817 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Camici -c- Italie 51649/99; [2001] ECHR 809; [2001] ECHR 818 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gaspari -c- Italie 51648/99; [2001] ECHR 819; [2001] ECHR 828 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Villanova -c- Italie 51663/99; [2001] ECHR 849; [2001] ECHR 858 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Savas, Regina (on the Application of) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 1062 11 Dec 2001 Admn Immigration, Human Rights 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â V.I. -c- Italie 51674/99; [2001] ECHR 847; [2001] ECHR 856 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Tiozzo Peschiero -c- Italie 51673/99; [2001] ECHR 846; [2001] ECHR 855 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Targi Et Bianchi -c- Italie 51656/99; [2001] ECHR 845; [2001] ECHR 854 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spanu -c- Italie 51711/99; [2001] ECHR 844; [2001] ECHR 853 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cappelletti Et Dell'Agnese -c- Italie 51696/99; [2001] ECHR 811; [2001] ECHR 820 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Carbone -c- Italie 51702/99; [2001] ECHR 812; [2001] ECHR 821 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cassin -c- Italie 51679/99; [2001] ECHR 813; [2001] ECHR 822 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Gary James Pearce Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 21 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2834 11 Dec 2001 CACD Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hughes, And, Mr Justice Penry-Davey Criminal Practice, Evidence, Human Rights The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He said that the court had not allowed his alcoholism as a characteristic for the purposes of testing the defence of provocation, and that the evidence of his long standing partner should be treated as equivalent to that of a wife, making her evidence admissible but not compellable. Held: As to the admission of evidence, that this was within the area of discretion allowed to convention states, and was a proper balance between the need for respect for family life, and the wider needs of the community. As to the alcohol abuse, there was no evidence of it having reached such a stage as to affect his control over how much he drank. The conviction stood. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 80(1) - Homicide Act 1957 3 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â D'Apice -c- Italie 51662/99; [2001] ECHR 814; [2001] ECHR 823 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â De Guz -c- Italie 51683/99; [2001] ECHR 815; [2001] ECHR 824 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F. C.A. -c- Italie 51653/99; [2001] ECHR 816; [2001] ECHR 825 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Canapicchi -c- Italie 51680/99; [2001] ECHR 810; [2001] ECHR 819 11 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Bankovic -v- Belgium; ECHR 12-Dec-2001 - 52207/99; (2001) 11 BHRC 435; [2001] ECHR 890 Â Regina (on the Application of Fuller, Wright, Tarr and Booth) -v- Chief Constable of Dorset Police and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1039 12 Dec 2001 Admn Justice Stanley Burnton Crime, Human Rights, Land The applicants sought to test the human rights compatibility of the section when applied to gypsies. The travellers sought to stay on land within the district. The local authority used its policy, and agreed to tolerate the encampment for a short time. There was a serious incident with police officers being held temporarily. After refusing to leave, police raided the encampment. Held The section had to be construed tightly since it created a criminal offence. 61(1) requires that the trespassers have not complied with the occupier’s request that they leave as a condition of the making of a direction by the police The question was not whether the section infringed rights, but whether a direction given under the section was an infringement. A landowner requesting trespassers to remove their goods from his land is not infringing the right to possession of goods. The section provided remedies and was proportionate. Their presence on the land was temporary, and the encampment was not their home within the article, but there could be an interference with family life. In this case though the travellers had not been given opportunity to comply with the request for them to leave, and the reaction of the police was disproportionate. The direction was not valid. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 61 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Luksch -v- Austria 37075/97; [2001] ECHR 850; [2001] ECHR 859 13 Dec 2001 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 - domestic proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Metropolitan Church Of Bessarabia And Others -v- Moldova 45701/99; (2002) 35 EHRR 306; [2001] ECHR 860 13 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights 'in principle, the right to freedom of religion as understood in the Convention rules out any appreciation by the state of the legitimacy of religious beliefs or of the manner in which these are expressed' European Convention on Human Rights 9 1 Citers [ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Porter and Weeks -v- Magill; HL 13-Dec-2001 - Times, 13 December 2001; [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 WLR 37; [2002] 2 AC 357; [2002] 1 All ER 465; [2001] NPC 184; [2002] HRLR 16; [2002] BLGR 51 Â Â Goode -v- Martin; CA 13-Dec-2001 - Times, 24 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1899; [2001] 3 All ER 562; [2002] 1 WLR 1828 Â Schreder -v- Austria 38536/97; [2001] ECHR 852; [2001] ECHR 861; [2009] ECHR 2217 13 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Newham -v- Adan Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1916; [2002] 1 WLR 2120; [2001] NPC 185; [2002] UKHRR 229; [2002] HLR 28; [2002] HRLR 17; [2002] 1 All ER 931 14 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice David Steel Housing, Human Rights The applicant was a Dutch national. She appealed for housing as a homeless person. The local authority, after review found her not to have a settled intention to stay in England. She appealed, to the County Court, and succeeded, and the Authority now appealed. Held: The County Court in reviewing such decisions under the section, was exercising a jurisdiction similar to that of the High Court on a judicial review, and therefore was bound by the factual findings of the reviewing officer. The county court has no power to direct a local housing authority how to carry out a review. If there was any question of unfairness in the procedure in denying her a fair trial, then that was for parliament to remedy. The reviewing officer's decision was re-instated. Housing Act 1996 204(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Coroner for the Western District of Somerset [2001] EWHC Admin 1043 14 Dec 2001 Admn Stanley Burnton J Prisons, Coroners, Human Rights The deceased had committed suicide whilst in prison. It was argued that the prison should have recognised that he was a suicide risk, and acted accordingly. The coroner had requested a note from the jury as to the cause of death. The court considered whether a coroner's inquest satisfied the requirements for an investigation of a death in custody: "However, where there has been neglect on the part of the State, and that neglect was a substantial contributory cause of the death, my view is that a formal and public finding of neglect on the part of the State is in general necessary in order to satisfy those requirements [of article 2]." An inquest would not necessarily satisfy the procedural requirements of article 2 in such a case, but the court declined to order that the jury's note be incorporated in the inquisition, because inter alia the coroner had acted unlawfully in suggesting production of the note. No declaration was needed but, at the request of the Secretary of State, declared that: "by reason of the restrictions on the verdict at the inquest into the death of [the deceased] . . . that inquest was inadequate to meet [the] procedural obligation in Article 2 of the European Convention . . ." European Convention on Human Rights 2 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â In re B (a Minor) (Adoption: Natural parent); HL 17-Dec-2001 - Times, 18 December 2001; [2001] UKHL 70 Â Matthew Joseph Langton Denley George Allen, Regina (on the Application of Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another) [2001] EWHC Admin 1047 17 Dec 2001 Admn Mr Nigel Pleming Q. C. (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge Agriculture, Animals, Human Rights, Judicial Review, Administrative The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant's land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes. Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant. Animal Health Act 1981 - Animal By-Products Order 1999 - European Convention on Human Rights - Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Gajdusek -v- Slovakia 40058/98; [2001] ECHR 854; [2001] ECHR 863 18 Dec 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sapl -c- France 37565/97; [2001] ECHR 860; [2001] ECHR 869 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R.D. -v- Poland 29692/96; [2001] ECHR 859 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Kuchar Et Stis -c- Republique Tcheque 37527/97; [2001] ECHR 856; [2001] ECHR 865 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gungu -c- Turquie 24945/94; [2001] ECHR 855; [2001] ECHR 864 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Acar -c- Turquie 24940/94; [2001] ECHR 853; [2001] ECHR 862 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R D -v- Poland 34612/97; 29692/96 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Parcinski -v- Poland 36250/97 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Â Reclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C 18 Dec 2001 SCS Lord Marnoch and Lord Hardie and Lord Weir Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act. Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to petition the governor. Had he done so and failed, he would have been able to seek judicial review. Nevertheless, the case should now go ahead. The pleas in law were rejected. European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Crown Proceedings Act 1947 47 - Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 3(1) - Scotland Act 1998 57(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ ScotC ] Â Parcinski -v- Poland 36250/97; [2001] ECHR 857; [2001] ECHR 866 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R.D. -v- Poland 34612/97; [2001] ECHR 868; 29692/96 18 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Drew Times, 14 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2861; [2001] EWCA Crim 2930 19 Dec 2001 CACD Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell and Mr Justice Cooke Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights The appellant, a mentally disordered offender appealed the imposition of an automatic life sentence. He asserted that it was a breach of his human rights. Held: Although courts had repeatedly encouraged the use of orders under the Mental Health Act, parliament had made its wishes clear, and such an order would provide greater protection for the public. The assumption under which he was detained was rebuttable, and that there was no evidence that he would not receive appropriate medical treatment. It was impossible to see how the introduction of the statutory assumption could have infringed the appellant's Convention rights. Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109 - European Convention on Human Rights Arts 3 and 5 [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Regina (A and others) (Widgery Soldiers) -v- Lord Saville of Newdigate and Others Times, 21 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 2048; [2002] 1 WLR 1249; [2002] ACD 22; [2001] 3 All ER 289; [2001] All ER (D) 298; (2001) 60 BMLR 1; [2001] Lloyds Rep Med 187 19 Dec 2001 CA Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Dyson Human Rights, Armed Forces, Administrative The court would apply common sense in deciding whether soldier witnesses should be obliged to attend in person at an enquiry in Londonderry, where they claimed their lives would be at risk. It was not appropriate to seek to define what would be meant by a threat to their article 2 rights to life. The state has a direct duty to seek to protect its citizens when their lives are threatened. The case raised the issue of whether, and in what circumstances, article 2 could require a public authority to desist from a lawful and peaceful activity because of a terrorist threat. The appropriate course is to consider first the nature of the subjective fears that that the soldier witnesses are likely to experience if called to give evidence in the Guildhall, to consider the extent to which those fears are objectively justified and then to consider the extent to which those fears, and the grounds giving rise to them, will be alleviated if the soldiers give their evidence somewhere in Great Britain rather than in Londonderry. That alleviation then has to be balanced against the adverse consequences to the inquiry of the move of venue, applying common sense and humanity. The result of the balancing exercise will determine the appropriate decision. This course will, we believe, accommodate both the requirements of article 2 and the common law requirement that the procedure should be fair. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â CG -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 19-Dec-2001 - Times, 04 January 2002; 43373/98; [2002] 34 EHRR 31; [2001] ECHR 861; [2001] ECHR 870 Â Interbrew SA -v- Financial Times Ltd and Others Times, 04 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWHC Ch 471; [2001] EWHC 480 (Ch); [2002] 1 Lloyds Rep 542 19 Dec 2001 ChD Justice Lightman Media, Human Rights The claimant was involved in takeover proceedings. Certain confidential documents were taken, doctored, and released to and published by the defendants who now resisted orders for disclosure of the source. Held: The court must balance the right of freedom of expression, and the private rights of the claimants. The court should start from an assumption that it would be wrong to order disclosure of the source of a press story, The claimants could succeed only if the disclosure was so important as to override the public interest in protecting journalistic sources in order to ensure free communication of information to and through the press. The damage caused was serious, a criminal offence had been involved, and the claimant had a legitimate need to prevent further such disclosures. The source was to be revealed. Contempt of Court Act 1981 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Curzon Berkeley Ltd, Regina (on Application of) -v- Bliss (Valuation Officer, London Westminster Group Inland Revenue) [2001] EWHC Admin 1130 19 Dec 2001 Admn Mr James Goudie QC Rating, Human Rights The appellant sought to challenge rating entries in the non-domestic rating list, by way of judicial review. The application was out of time, but proceeded as a substantial review. The applicant said the entries were incurably defective in that they misdescribed the properties. Domestic properties could be in the list if used for short stay lets. Held: The misdescription did not annul the entry, and was capable of rectification if necessary. However the Act was incapable of being reread so as to impose liability for tax on a freeholder. The Act may include a drafting error, but it could not be rewritten by the courts to correct that error. Local Government Finance Act 1992 22 28 - Local Government Finance Act 1988 41 - Non-Domestic Rates (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Morven Marcia McPherson -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1955 19 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Sedley and Lady Justice Arden Immigration, Human Rights The appellant had entered the UK as a visitor on regular occasions and latterly had used false passport. She was then convicted of supplying Class A drugs, and ordered to be deported. She had children who also were in the UK, and did not wish to be separated from them, and was afraid of violence against her if she was returned to Jamaica The adjudicator had failed to make a determination on her claim under article 8, and the IAT had declined to allow an appeal. Held: It was wrong not to hear the point. She had the right to make the claim, and had the right to have it determined. There was clear evidence that the state might be unable to protect her from an individual. There was a change in the law between the adjudicator's decision and the IAT decision whereby someone breaching an order under the Jamaican Domestic Violence Act might be imprisoned. A state could not be required to guarantee the safety of an individual, but some judgement had to be made. Appeal allowed. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina -v- Drew Gazette, 21 February 2002 19 Dec 2001 CACD Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell and Mr Justice Cooke Criminal Sentencing, Health, Human Rights Having once been convicted of grievous bodily harm, and later being convicted of wounding with intent, the defendant became subject to the mandatory sentence provisions. He appealed saying that since he suffered from a mental illness, that illness should be treated as an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to exercise a discretion, and that a denial of his right to be so treated infringed his human rights. Held: His condition had not left him in a position where he was not fit to plead, and therefore his mental condition should not affect sentence. As a lifer, he would receive appropriate medical treatment, and his human rights had not been infringed. Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2 - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 3 5 1 Cites Â Janssen -v- Germany 23959/94; [2001] ECHR 879 20 Dec 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â The Home Office -v- Mary Jane Wainwright, Alan Joseph Wainwright Times, 04 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2081; [2002] QB 1334 20 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton Prisons, Torts - Other, Human Rights, Personal Injury The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the prison officers had a right to conduct the search. The actions had occurred before the Human Rights Act came into force. There had been considerable uncertainty as to whether the Human Rights Act 1998 can apply retrospectively in situations where the conduct complained of occurred before the Act came into force. Case law had not decided whether s3 could operate retrospectively, but it did not. There appeared no intention of the prison officers to cause harm or distress, and no Wilkinson v Downton action was available to the claimant. Any consent was only to a search conducted properly. Claims other than for battery were dismissed. There is no tort of invasion of privacy, but only separate torts protecting body and property. The germ of a tort of breach of privacy all lay in the law of confidence. No element of confidence was involved here Human Rights Act 1998 3 22(4) - Prison Act 1952 47 - Prison Rules 1964 (1964 No 388) 86(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bayrak -c- Allemagne 27937/95; [2001] ECHR 863; [2001] ECHR 872 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Conceicao Fernandes -c- Portugal 48960/99; [2001] ECHR 865; [2001] ECHR 874 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â F.L. -c- Italie 25639/94; [2001] ECHR 867; [2001] ECHR 876 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Leray Et Autres -c- France 44617/98; [2001] ECHR 871; [2001] ECHR 880 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Lsi Information Technologies -c- Grece 46380/99; [2001] ECHR 872; [2001] ECHR 881 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Spinnato, Re -v- Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1124 20 Dec 2001 Admn Lord Justice Kennedy And Mrs Justice Hallett Immigration, Human Rights The prisoner had been convicted in his absence in 1991 of offences in Italy. He was resident in England at the time, and many years later extradition was sought. He had not hidden his whereabouts, and the Italian State seemed not to have pursued him. He now said it would not be in the interests of justice for him to be called upon to serve the sentence, and that the trial in his absence infringed his human rights. Held: A trial in a defendants absence is not automatically unfair, particularly if he had opportunity to be heard. In this case he had been actively represented in his absence, and in England his trial would not be set aside. Would it be unjust or oppressive to order his return? Although the delay had been substantial, and he had acquired new obligations here, it was not wrong to order his return to serve the sentence. European Convention on Human Rights - Extradition Act 1989 6(2) 11(3)(b) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â PS -v- Germany (2001) 36 EHRR 1139; [2001] ECHR 875; 33900/96; [2001] ECHR 884 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Criminal Practice The applicant had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child. The evidence against him consisted of a statement made by the child's mother about what her daughter had told her, and evidence by a police officer who had questioned the daughter shortly after the offence. The daughter was not available to be questioned by the Court or on behalf of the defendant. On appeal, the Regional Court ordered a psychological assessment of the daughter's credibility. The expert reported that her statements were credible. Her parents refused to bring her to the Appeal Court for questioning. The appeal was dismissed. Held: These procedures could not "be considered as having enabled the defence to challenge the evidence of (the daughter), reported in Court by third persons, one of them a close relative" and accordingly held that there had been a violation of article 6: "All the evidence must normally be produced at a public hearing, in the presence of the accused, with a view to adversarial argument. There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence. As a general rule, the accused must be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statement or at a later stage". European Convention on Human Rights 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Buchberger -v- Austria 32899/96; [2001] ECHR 864; [2001] ECHR 873; [2010] ECHR 2250 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Zawadzki -c- Pologne 34158/96; [2001] ECHR 877; [2001] ECHR 886 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Weixelbraun -v- Austria 33730/96; (2001) 36 EHRR 799; [2001] ECHR 885 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention Proceedings 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Normann -v- Denmark 44704/98; [2001] ECHR 874; [2001] ECHR 883 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ludescher -v- Austria 35019/97; [2001] ECHR 873; [2001] ECHR 882 20 Dec 2001 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 - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gorzelik And Others -v- Poland [2001] ECHR 869; 44158/98 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ludescher -v- Austria 35019/97 20 Dec 2001 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 - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Â Â Futterer -v- Croatia; ECHR 20-Dec-2001 - 52634/99; [2001] ECHR 868; [2001] ECHR 877 Â Janssen -v- Germany 23959/94 20 Dec 2001 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 (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings Â Â Futterer -v- Croatia; ECHR 20-Dec-2001 - 52634/99 Â Baischer -v- Austria 32381/96 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim rejected Â Baischer -v- Austria 32381/96; [2001] ECHR 862; [2001] ECHR 871 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim rejected [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Eginlioglu -v- Turkey 31312/96 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Â Eginlioglu -v- Turkey 31312/96; [2001] ECHR 866; [2001] ECHR 875 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Buchberger -v- Austria 32899/96 20 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim rejected Â South Coast Shipping -v- Havant Borough Council [2002] 3 All ER 779; [2001] EW Costs 16; [2001] EWHC 9017 (Costs) 21 Dec 2001 Mr Justice Pumfrey sitting with Assessors Costs, Human Rights With respect to privileged material produced to the Costs Judge, once a document is of sufficient importance to be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion as to recoverability, then, unless otherwise agreed, it must be shown to the paying party or the receiving party must content himself with other evidence. If the costs judge has seen documents and required the receiving party to elect between giving secondary evidence of the retainer and waiving the privilege, there was no incompatibility with the Convention. This does not mean the costs judge may put the receiving party to its election for every document, regardless of relevance. The paying party may be content to agree that the costs judge alone should see the privileged documents. Only where it is necessary and proportionate should the receiving party be put to his election. The redaction and production of privileged documents, or the adducing of further evidence, will lead to additional delay and increased costs. CourtService The court considered the impact on detailed assessment proceedings of the European Convention on Human Rights, with particular relevance to the disclosure to the paying party of sensitive material relating to their bill of costs to which privilege attached. The European cases did not override the longstanding principle of privilege in English law, but the principle that a court should not decide issues after hearing and seeing only one side of the argument was a very powerful one. He indicated that much greater use should be made of Costs Judges and District Judges of paragraph 40.14 of the Costs Practice Direction in relation to the putting of receiving parties to their election as to how they proved particular issues of this nature. However, on the facts, and because the Costs Judge from whom the appeal was brought had clearly considered all the relevant factors in coming to his decision that there had been no breach of the indemnity principle on the evidence available to him, the Judge dismissed the appeal, saying that to do otherwise would be to generate unfortunate and unnecessary satellite litigation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hughes and Others -v- HM Customs and Excise [2001] EWHC Admin 1102 21 Dec 2001 Admn Mr Justice Hooper Customs and Excise, Criminal Practice, Human Rights The applicants had either been acquitted of drugs trafficking offences, or were third parties. In each case, property had been taken into receivership, and orders had been made for the receivers to take their costs from the assets taken. The proprietors appealed that part of the orders. Held: The receiver is an officer of the court, not an agent of the parties. He may not use an unconvicted defendant’s assets to meet the costs of the receivership. Human Rights law would in any event have interfered. Depriving an unconvicted defendant or a third party of his share of lawfully obtained assets to pay the costs of receivership is a disproportionate measure and a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol. Drug Trafficking Act 1994 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 1A 77(8) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Percy -v- Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 21 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 1125 21 Dec 2001 Admn Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Hallett Crime, Human Rights The defendant had been convicted of using words or behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress, when she defaced the US flag, and stood on it before a US military officer. She said that the defacing of flags was a common form of protest, that she had no intention to cause alarm or distress, and that any such restriction unjustifiably restricted her right to freedom of expression. Held: The conviction could not be supported. It was a proper purpose to prevent behaviour which caused insult and distress, and there is a pressing social need in a multicultural society to prevent the denigration of objects of veneration and symbolic importance for one cultural group. Nevertheless, the second stage of the test looked to whether any infringement was a proportionate response. The availability of alternate ways of expressing her feelings was only one factor, and the judge had taken insufficient note of the need to protect freedom of speech. Public Order Act 1986 5 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â K K C -v- The Netherlands 58964/00 21 Dec 2001 ECHR Mrs E. PALM, President, Mrs W. THOMASSEN, Mr GAUKUR JÖRUNDSSON, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mr J. CASADEVALL, Mr B. ZUPANCIC Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) The applicant, a Chechen complained that his proposed expulsion to Russia from the Netherlands would put his life at risk. Whilst in the Netherlands had had been convicted on several occasions of minor criminal offences. The claim was deemed admissible, and settled upon his being granted a residency permit without restrictions. Â Â Regina -v- Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders; CACD 21-Dec-2001 - Times, 01 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2860 Â Bertrand Fleurose -v- The Securities & Futures Authority Ltd, The Disciplinary Appeal Tribunal of the Securities & Futures Authority Ltd Times, 15 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 1085; [2001] EWCA Civ 2015; [2002] IRLR 297 21 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke, And, Mr. Justice Wall Human Rights, Administrative The applicant sought to challenge a decision suspending him from authorisation to act as a financial adviser. He was alleged to have sought to affect the Index of share values in order that his company should not be liable under certain options. He said the decision was in effect a criminal decision. Held: It was not a criminal charge. Applying the principles set out in Human Rights case law, the proceedings were not sufficiently serious to take the case to that point. Nevertheless some aspects of the right to a fair trial might apply under article 6. The appellant knew the basis of the allegation against him, and decisions made by him as to the conduct of his defence made the question of free legal representation irrelevant. Because the charge was not criminal evidence obtained under compulsion was admissible. Schiemann LJ said: "It is common ground between the parties, and we are content to accept, that the Disciplinary Tribunal was involved in the determination of M Fleurose's civil rights for the purposes of Article 6. Therefore clearly the proceedings had to be fair. We accept for present purposes, as did the judge, that it was for the SFA to prove their case, that the SFA had to inform M Fleurose in good time of the nature of the charges, that he must have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, a proper opportunity to give and call evidence and question those witnesses called against him. What fairness requires will vary from case to case and manifestly the gravity and complexity of the charges and of the defence will impact on what fairness requires. In this context we have born in mind, as did the judge, the points made by the Human Rights Court in Paragraphs 30 and 39 of Albert & Le Compte v Belgium, and in paragraphs 32 and 33 of Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands [1993] 18 EHRR 213." European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â K K C -v- The Netherlands 58964/00; [2001] ECHR 878; [2001] ECHR 887 21 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sen -v- The Netherlands (2001) 36 EHRR 81; 31465/96; [2001] ECHR 888 21 Dec 2001 ECHR Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Human Rights - From: 2001 To: 2001