QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 15 May 2020

Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1)
[2020] EWHC 1221 (Admin), [2020] WLR(D) 291
Bailii, WLRD
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 11(2)(d), European Convention on Human Rights 6, Data Protection Act 2018
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedFerrazzini v Italy ECHR 12-Jul-2001
(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 . .
CitedRingeisen v Austria ECHR 16-Jul-1971
The Austrian District and Regional Real Property Transactions Commission refused to approve the sale of a number of plots of land. The applicant challenged the refusal alleging bias and contending that his article 6 rights were violated for that . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedDe Tommaso v Italy ECHR 23-Feb-2017
Grand Chamber – there has been a shift in ECHR case law towards applying the civil aspect of article 6(1) to cases which ‘might not initially appear to concern a civil right’ but which may have ‘direct and significant repercussions on a private . .
CitedMaaouia v France ECHR 5-Oct-2000
A deportation order, made against a Tunisian, was eventually quashed by the French Administrative Court and the Article 6 complaints related to the length of time taken in the proceedings. The Court’s reasoning why Article 6 does not apply to . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .

Cited by:
CitedReprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister Admn 30-Jun-2020
Standing may not be enough for JR
The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision that it was no longer necessary to establish a public inquiry to investigate allegations of involvement of the United Kingdom intelligence services in torture, mistreatment and . .
See AlsoQX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-Sep-2020
Whether the present proceedings breach the claimant’s right to a fair trial under article 6 of the Convention.
The claimant applied for a review of two of the obligations imposed on him after his return to the United Kingdom under a Temporary . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.650832