Citations: 21463/93, [2001] ECHR 10, [2001] ECHR 10 Links: Worldlii, Bailii Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Jurisdiction: Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Pulcini v Italy ECHR 17-Apr-2003 Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial … Continue reading Lunari v Italy: ECHR 11 Jan 2001
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process. It was alleged that the defendant solicitor had permitted a relation of his partner to launder the proceeds of a tax fraud. The principal defendant had been substantially acquitted of the offences alleged to be a fraud. The defendant had been … Continue reading RCPO v C: CACD 5 Feb 2010
When determining whether a claimant has possessions or property within the meaning of Article I the court may have regard to national law and will generally do so unless the national law is incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 1. Any interference with the enjoyment of property must be justifiable as being in … Continue reading Pressos Compania Naviera S A And Others v Belgium: ECHR 20 Nov 1995
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-II 25444/94, [1999] ECHR 17, (1999) … Continue reading Pelissier and Sassi v France: ECHR 25 Mar 1999
Over-long delay by court system in settling amount of costs constituted breach of human rights; order made in 1991, not settled till 1995 Times 24-Oct-1997, [1997] ECHR 72, 22410/93, (1997) 26 EHRR 527, [1997] ECHR 72 Worldlii, Bailii European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 Human Rights Cited by: Cited – Davies v The United Kingdom … Continue reading Robins v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Sep 1997
There had been a long-running dispute as to the manner of death of a French judge seconded to Djibouti. The applicant, acting for the widow had been prosecuted for his outspoken criticisms of the judge who had had conduct of the case, until being replaced. The applicant claimed that, before the Court of Cassation, his … Continue reading Morice v France: ECHR 23 Apr 2015
The applicant alleged, in particular, that the observations filed by the defendant in her court action in response to the appeal had not been communicated to her and that, in violation of her rights under Article 6.1 of the Convention, she had been denied a public hearing of that appeal. Josep Casadevall, P 17127/12 – … Continue reading Trancikova v Slovakia: ECHR 13 Jan 2015
The applicant alleged in particular that, contrary to the requirements of Article 6.1 of the Convention, he had been denied a hearing within a reasonable time in respect of the claim he had lodged in Slovakia for the return of his children (‘the children’) to the Kingdom of Norway under the Convention on the Civil … Continue reading Hoholm v Slovakia: ECHR 13 Jan 2015
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use of … Continue reading Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza: HL 22 Jan 2004
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and questioned whether they had has an impartial judge, he having also conducted … Continue reading O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2: SC 13 Jun 2013
The defendant had been convicted of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Held: The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s challenge to this provision as incompatible with article 6(2). It created a rebuttable presumption which the defendant could disprove, and was not a … Continue reading X v United Kingdom: ECHR 1972
(Grand Chamber) The claimant complained that as a prisoner he had been deprived of his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court in connection with the decisions refusing his requests for prison leave. Held: The complaint was admissible, and a breach of the prisoner’s article 6 rights had been … Continue reading Boulois v Luxembourg: ECHR 3 Apr 2012
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the European Convention in that the decision maker was the Secretary … Continue reading V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1999
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the restrictions in place. Assurances had been given by the home nations that on return they would not … Continue reading A and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that she had not received a letter informing her of the consequences of not accepting an … Continue reading Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council: SC 17 Feb 2010
The applicant complained that at his trial in 1988 for the murder of two British soldiers in Befast, the judge had allowed the cameramen upon whose film evidence he had been convicted to be hidden from the view of the defendants. The court considered the admissibility of the claim. Held: The case wa inadmissible: ‘The … Continue reading AM v United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Dec 1992
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a seriously violent incident, and it was found that he continued to … Continue reading McClean, Re: HL 7 Jul 2005
Tenant’s First Notice to terminate, stood The landlord served a notice to terminate the business lease. The tenant first served a notice to say that it would not seek a new lease, but then, and still within the time limit, it served a second counter-notice seeking a new tenancy. The landlord sought to rely upon … Continue reading Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook: CA 2 Feb 2004
The claimant said that the defendant country had failed to provide her with an effective remedy for delay in proceedings before its courts. She had sought damages after being involved in a fire. She began proceedings in 1989, and they were concluded in 2006. The government pleaded that the claimant had not yet exhausted her … Continue reading Umek v Slovenia: ECHR 8 Jan 2009
The applicants had been sued in defamation by McDonalds. They had no resources, and English law precluded legal aid for such cases. The trial was the longest in English legal history. They complained that the non-availablility of legal aid infringed their right to a fair trial. Held: There had been an unacceptable inequality of arms. … Continue reading Steel and Morris v United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Feb 2005
The claimant was employed as a music assistant. He was accused of sexual misconduct. He complained that he had not been allowed legal representation at the disciplinary hearing. Held: Whilst it is standard practice for legal representation not to be allowed, where the misconduct alleged was sufficiently serious, his article 6.1 rights were engaged and … Continue reading G, Regina (on the Application of) v X School and Another: Admn 18 Mar 2009
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an appeal to the County Court on a point of law. Held: The decision was … Continue reading Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening): HL 13 Feb 2003
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13+6 and 14+6; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) (Art. 14+6); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) (Art. 6); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time) . .
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
The applicant, a Belgian butcher, paid a fine by way of settlement in the face of an order for the closure of his shop until judgment was given in an intended criminal prosecution or until such fine was paid.
Held: Since the payment was made . .
Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6-1
‘the Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were ‘fair’ . .
Hudoc No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 6-1
An aeroplane was seized as liable to forfeiture pursuant to section 141(1) of the 1979 Act. It was restored on payment of a penalty of andpound;50,000. . .
. .
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 . .
The applicant asserted infringement of his rights by virtue of his detention before trial. He was arrested and detained in 1993, but his case was not concluded until 1997, with appeals running through to 1997.
Held: Suspicion is a sine qua non . .
The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none . .
References: Times 15-May-2001, 36337/97, 35974/97, (2002) 34 EHRR 529, [2001] 2 FLR 261, [2001] ECHR 295, [1999] ECHR 179 Links: Bailii, Bailii Ratio 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 … Continue reading B -v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Apr 2001