Pinder v United Kingdom: ECHR 1984

(Commission) ‘The Commission . . recalls that the concept of ‘civil rights’ is autonomous. Thus, irrespective of whether a right is in domestic law labelled ‘public’, ‘private’, ‘civil’ or something else, it is ultimately for the Convention organs to decide whether it is a ‘civil’ right within the meaning of article 6(1). However, in the Commission’s view, article 6(1) does not impose requirements in respect of the nature and scope of the relevant national law governing the ‘right’ in question. Nor does the Commission consider that it is, in principle, competent to determine or review the substantive content of the civil law which ought to obtain in the State Party any more than it could in respect of substantive criminal law. As it has stated in App No 7151/75: Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden, series B:
Whether a right is at all at issue in a particular case depends primarily on the legal system of the State concerned. It is true that the concept of a ‘right’ is itself autonomous to some degree. Thus it is not decisive for the purposes of article 6(1) that a given privilege or interest which exists in the domestic system is not classified or described as a ‘right’ by that system. However, it is clear that the Convention organs could not create by way of interpretation of article 6(1) a substantive right which has no legal basis whatsoever in the State concerned.’
(1984) 7 EHRR 464, 10096/82
Cited by:

  • Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence CA 29-May-2002
    The Ministry appealed against a finding that the Act, which deprived the right of a Crown employee to sue for personal injuries, was an infringement of his human rights.
    Held: The restriction imposed by the section was not a procedural . .
    [2002] 1 WLR 2621, Times 31-May-02, Gazette 04-Jul-02, [2002] EWCA Civ 773
  • Cited – Kehoe, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 14-Jul-2005
    The applicant contended that the 1991 Act infringed her human rights in denying her access to court to obtain maintenance for her children.
    Held: The applicant had no substantive right to take part in the enforcement process in domestic law . .
    [2006] AC 42, [2005] UKHL 48, Times 15-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 252

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2020; Ref: scu.182984