Citations:
21237/04, [2009] ECHR 1893
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381364
21237/04, [2009] ECHR 1893
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381364
45037/07, [2009] ECHR 1864
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381331
31965/07, [2009] ECHR 1839, [2012] ECHR 261
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.381301
[2009] EWHC 995 (Admin)
England and Wales
See Also – Norris, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 24-Feb-2006
The claimant challenged his extradition to the US saying that it was wrong for the US to continue to be listed as a designated country for extradition under section 84.
Held: The fact that the US had not yet ratified the treaty under which a . .
See Also – Norris v United States of America and others; (Goldshield Group plc intervening) Admn 25-Jan-2007
The defendant was the former chief executive of a company manufacturing carbon products internationally. His extradition to the US was sought on the basis that he had conspired in a dishonest price-fixing conspiracy.
Held: The secrecy of such . .
See Also – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Appeal from – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.377554
3237/06, [2009] ECHR 1622
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Dieter Stephan and Beate Rohrig v Germany ECHR 12-Apr-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377254
45388/99, [2009] ECHR 1662
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377281
46263/06, [2009] ECHR 1625
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377259
31488/07, [2009] ECHR 1651
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377257
20670/06, [2009] ECHR 1593
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376294
584/06, [2009] ECHR 1575
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376282
1752/07, [2009] ECHR 1577, [2011] ECHR 2322
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376302
54091/08, [2009] ECHR 1578
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Aleksei Pervushin And Others v Estonia 2-Mar-2010
. .
See Also – Aleksei Pervushin And Others v Estonia 7-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376275
The claimant was subject to a control order under the 2005 Act. The court was asked whether it could properly continue without him having sufficient knowledge of the allegations and evidence to be able to defend himself.
Collins J
[2009] EWHC 2564 (Admin)
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376218
The Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s decision to refuse to allow the Claimant to submit a Tutor Marked Assessment (TMA) to the Open University
William Davis QC HHJ
[2009] EWHC 2397 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376016
Laws LJ
[2009] EWHC 2416 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Mentioned – Mousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376141
34356/06, [2009] ECHR 1427
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376072
31240/03, [2009] ECHR 1361, [2011] ECHR 386
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375439
39598/09, [2009] ECHR 1391
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The . .
See Also – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority QBD 4-Dec-2006
. .
At CA – Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The . .
At HL – Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
See Also – Jain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicants ran a Registered Nursing Home. The health authority, having concerns about its elderly residents, brought an ex parte application under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for an order cancelling the Certificate of . .
See Also – Jain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicants ran a Registered Nursing Home. The health authority, having concerns about its elderly residents, brought an ex parte application under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for an order cancelling the Certificate of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375443
32907/07, [2009] ECHR 1397
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Aleksei Pervushin And Others v Estonia 7-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375459
34274/08, [2009] ECHR 1392
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375501
2843/05, [2009] ECHR 1409
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375515
1163/08, [2009] ECHR 1384
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375498
43696/04, [2009] ECHR 1403
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.375493
A challenge by request for judicial review to the legality of the comprehensive ban on smoking at the State Hospital at Carstairs which the State Hospitals Board adopted. The appellant, a detained patient, did not challenge the ban on smoking indoors, but rather as to the ban on smoking in the grounds and on home visits, which, by creating a comprehensive ban, prevented detained patients from smoking anywhere.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. The respondent had not considered the principle that their actions should represent the minimum interference with a restrained person’s freedoms necessary to achieve the intended purpose. The absolute prohibition on having tobacco products and the related powers to search and confiscate were illegal and were nullified.
‘The Board did not purport to act under the 2003 Act in instituting the policy of prohibiting the possession of tobacco products, searching for such products and confiscating them. It may be the case that the consultation exercises which the Board carried out during 2011 were sufficient to comply with the obligations in section 1(2) and (3) of the 2003 Act. But there appears to have been no consideration of the obligation under section 1(4) nor compliance with the obligations to inform and record in the 2005 Regulations. This is not surprising as the Board considered that it was acting under the 1978 Act.’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 31, [2017] 1 WLR 1455, 2017 GWD 12-169, 2017 SLT 451, [2017] 4 All ER 449, (2017) 156 BMLR 35, [2017] WLR(D) 268, UKSC 2015/0135
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Scotland
Outer House – CM, Re Judicial Review SCS 27-Aug-2013
(Outer House) The prisoner, held in a high security psychiatric hospital, challenged the outright ban on smoking.
Held: The Lord Ordinary declared that the impugned decision was unlawful so far as it affected Mr McCann both because it was not . .
Extra Div Inner House – SN v Secretary of State for The Home Department SCS 14-Jan-2014
Extra Division, Inner House – . .
Appeal From – Reclaiming Motion Charles McCann v The State Hospital Board for Scotland SCS 12-Aug-2014
Inner House – The house considered a reclaiming motion (appeal) as to the lawfulness of a decision by the respondents to prohibit smoking and the possession of tobacco in the buildings and grounds of the State Hospital, Carstairs. The Board . .
Cited – Lyons, Re Judicial Review SCS 2-Feb-2011
The petitioner was a detained patient, subject to both a compulsion and restriction orders. He objected to a policy restricting visitors from bringing food parcels, and restricting ordering food from outside.
Held: Lady Dorrian held that the . .
Cited – G, Regina (on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust Admn 20-May-2008
The applicants were detained at Rampton. The form of detention denied the access to space in which they would be able to smoke cigarettes to comply with the law.
Held: The claim failed. The legislative objectives were sufficiently serious to . .
Cited – Munjaz v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jul-2012
The applicant was detained in a secure mental hospital. He complained that he had been held in seclusion.
Held: The complaints under articles 5 and 8 were admissible, but there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights in these . .
Cited – Bruggeman and Scheuten v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 12-Jul-1977
(Commission) The applicants complained at restrictions on the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
Held: Article 8(1) secures to the individual a sphere within which he can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his personality. He . .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – Niemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
Cited – Regina v Broadmoor Hospital Authority, Ex p S CA 1998
Routine and random searches may be an incident of therapeutic detention and treatment. . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.581645
Article 35-1
Six month period
Failure to lodge timely application concerning failure of insolvent State entity to pay judgment debt: inadmissible
Facts – Between 2003 and 2005 the applicants obtained final court orders against their former employer, a ‘socially/State-owned’ company, requiring it to pay them salary arrears and social security reimbursements. In 2005 insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of the company. The applicants lodged claims in the insolvency proceedings but the company’s assets were insufficient for them to be paid in full. In 2008 the commercial court terminated the insolvency proceedings and ordered the company’s liquidation. Its decision was published in the Official Gazette and recorded in the relevant public registries. In 2010 the applicants’ lawyer asked for the decision to be served on him. In the same year, the applicants filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected in 2012. In the proceedings before the European Court the Government raised a preliminary objection that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging applications, arguing that time had started to run when the commercial court’s decision terminating the insolvency proceedings was published in the Official Gazette and/or became final.
Law – Article 35 ss 1: In cases concerning the execution of final court decisions the State was directly liable for the debts of entities which, as here, did not enjoy ‘sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State’. Since the judgments in the applicants’ favour remained partly unenforced, the situation complained of had to be considered as continuing.
However, a continuing situation could not postpone the running of the six-month time-limit indefinitely. Applicants had to introduce their complaints ‘without undue delay’ once it was apparent that there were no realistic prospects of a favourable outcome or progress domestically. In the instant case, once they had become aware or should have been aware that the insolvency proceedings had been terminated and/or the debtor company liquidated without any legal successor or remaining assets, it should have been apparent to the applicants that there was no available legal avenue under domestic law for obtaining enforcement of the judgments in their favour against the company or against the State. The applicants should therefore have lodged their applications with the Court within six months from the publication in the Official Gazette of the commercial court’s decision terminating the insolvency proceedings or, at the latest, from when that decision became final. In this regard, the Court noted that domestic law did not prescribe an obligation on the part of the commercial court to serve its decision on the applicants, who should therefore have made such a request in due time. It followed that the applications had been introduced outside the six-month time-limit and had to be rejected. However, the Court pointed out that the applicants’ failure to comply with that duty did not lead to the extinguishment of the State’s general liability for the debts of the company.
Conclusion: inadmissible (out of time).
30859/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 298
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.522575
12030/03 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 43
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.519714
1944/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 37
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.519704
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.
Times 17-May-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.88488
35911/05, [2009] ECHR 1260
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372615
12174/03, [2009] ECHR 1227
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.371629
289/05, [2009] ECHR 1105
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352290
38079/06, [2009] ECHR 1100
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352291
20198/05, [2009] ECHR 1116
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352298
9583/06, [2009] ECHR 1095
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352287
37703/03, [2009] ECHR 1098
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352289
8308/08, [2009] ECHR 1115
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352288
22617/07, [2009] ECHR 1106
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352304
49032/07, [2009] ECHR 1107
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352308
23532/05, [2009] ECHR 1092
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352299
44048/07, [2009] ECHR 1140
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352326
13224/05, [2009] ECHR 1102
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352269
38813/08, [2009] ECHR 1094
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352268
3469/06, [2009] ECHR 1090
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352280
28108/05, [2009] ECHR 1109
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352281
10470/07, [2009] ECHR 1096
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352271
6025/09, [2009] ECHR 1158
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352285
1371/05, [2009] ECHR 1103
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.352273
31572/03, [2009] ECHR 937
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347643
20982/07, [2009] ECHR 1064
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347674
27639/08, [2009] ECHR 1053
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347597
43044/05, [2009] ECHR 1006
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Veli Sacilik And Others v Turkey ECHR 5-Jul-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347639
40423/0, [2009] ECHR 1055
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347600
6940/08, [2009] ECHR 1004
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347611
39447/03, [2009] ECHR 940
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347590
32805/03, [2009] ECHR 938
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347630
34396/05, [2009] ECHR 1043
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Bulent Alp And Others v Turkey ECHR 7-Dec-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347579
10426/02, [2009] ECHR 933
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347602
41356/08, [2009] ECHR 995, [2012] ECHR 788
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347577
75201/01, [2009] ECHR 1046
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347610
22341/09, [2009] ECHR 945
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347595
22538/04, [2009] ECHR 941
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347634
ECHR Judgment : Violation of Article 5 – Right to liberty and security Article 5-4 – Procedural guarantees of review Violation of Article 5…
34170/07, [2009] ECHR 1051, [2017] ECHR 441
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347592
13640/03, [2009] ECHR 1042
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347641
24696/08, [2009] ECHR 1005
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347619
36245/07, [2009] ECHR 1052
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347617
19252/04, [2009] ECHR 1045
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347623
2600/06, [2009] ECHR 1007
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347594
31438/04, [2009] ECHR 1002
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347593
27632/08, [2009] ECHR 957
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347551
7307/05, [2009] ECHR 944
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347572
44092/05, [2009] ECHR 1050
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347567
6557/08, [2009] ECHR 1003
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347568
14298/06, [2009] ECHR 930
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347573
19554/03, [2009] ECHR 966
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347555
A judge who had ordered the trial of an eleven year old boy in the Crown Court but in doing so had kept in mind the judgement in the cases of T v United Kingdom and V v United Kingdom, and had made appropriate adjustments to the proceedings, had acted properly within his discretion.
Times 05-Jul-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.85159
The Tribunal considered the Complainants’ application for interim relief in their case before it in the light of undertakings given by the Respondents. It also gave preliminary consideration to appropriate practice to be followed in the event a Closed hearing was requested by the Respondents.
Burton J P, Seabrook QC, Flint QC
[2014] UKIPTrib 13 – 132-9H
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 68(4)
England and Wales
See Also – Belhadj and Others v Security Service and Others (Including Determination) IPT 29-Apr-2015
The court considered the methods used for collection of information by the security services, and gave the following guidance: ‘(i) Whether in fact there has been, prior to 18 November 2014, soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK . .
Cited – Liberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) and Others v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 22-Jun-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.525979
8656/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 38
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.519701
Douglas Brown J
[2003] EWHC 2051 (QB)
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 65(2)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347395
13079/03, [2009] ECHR 925
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347005
19847/07, [2009] ECHR 878
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347007
31509/02, [2009] ECHR 877
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347010
54252/07, [2009] ECHR 924
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346999
30279/07, [2009] ECHR 873
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347001
49128/06, [2009] ECHR 876
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346997
62506/00, [2009] ECHR 869
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346994
13933/04, [2009] ECHR 927
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346995
42868/06, [2009] ECHR 874
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347000
7045/08, [2009] ECHR 923
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346992
17731/03, [2009] ECHR 875
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346993
17095/03, [2009] ECHR 879
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346987
22571/05, [2009] ECHR 926
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.346991
A patient suffering schizophrenia had been a voluntary patient. He was allowed to visit another unit within the hospital grounds, but then left altogether and was next found preparing to jump from Tower Bridge. He was taken by ambulance to Hospital but, left to wait, he again left, and a person of his description was seen shortly afterwards to jump into the river at St Katherine’s Dock and some weeks later his body was recovered from the river at Wapping. Mrs Takoushis applied for judicial review of the inquest. She said that the enquiry had been insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 2 of the ECHR because the Coroner had refused to allow her to call expert evidence relating to the quality of care that her husband had received at the hospital prior to his death. The hospital took part in the proceedings as an interested party.
Held: The judge noted that the hospital had accepted that article 2 was engaged. In view of that it was not necessary for him to pursue that point.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘Although the possible verdicts at an inquest under the 1988 Act are circumscribed and, in particular must not ascribe criminal or civil liability, that does not mean that the facts should not be fully investigated . .’
Elias J
[2004] EWHC 2922 (Admin)
Coroners Act 1988, European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Appeal from – Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
Cited – Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and Another (No 2) CA 12-Oct-2005
The applicant intended to appeal refusal of her challenge to the verdict of the coroner. For the first time at appeal she sought a protective costs order.
Held: The Corner House case established that a request for a protective costs order . .
Cited – Gentle, Regina (on the Application of) and Another v The Prime Minister and Another HL 9-Apr-2008
The appellants were mothers of two servicemen who had died whilst on active service in Iraq. They appealed refusal to grant a public inquiry. There had already been coroners inquests. They said that Article 2 had been infringed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.221032
ECJ (Judgment) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to an infringement procedure opened by the Commission against the Czech Republic – Refusal of access – Exception concerning the protection of inspections, investigations and audits – General presumption – Overriding public interest – Aarhus Convention – European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Secondary EU legislation should, so far as possible, be interpreted consistently with international agreements concluded by the European Union.
ECLI:EU:T:2017:18, [2017] EUECJ T-727/15
European
At TCC (1) – Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority TCC 23-Jan-2014
This litigation concerns the procurement process for a contract in relation to the decommissioning of nuclear installations. The Claimant is a company which provides integrated waste management and decommissioning services for the nuclear industry. . .
Cited – Nuclear Decommissioning Authority v Energysolutions EU Ltd (Now Called ATK Energy EU Ltd) SC 11-Apr-2017
This is an appeal on preliminary points of European Union and domestic law regarding the circumstances in which damages may be recoverable for failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement Directive (Parliament and Council . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.573735
The claimant child alleged that the defendant had released him from administrative immigration detention without first putting safeguarding arrangements in place, leave him iat risk, in particular of becoming victim to human trafficking.
McGowan J
[2016] EWHC 1912 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 4
England and Wales
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.567874
Statement of facts
48876/08, [2011] ECHR 191
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
At HL – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport HL 12-Mar-2008
The applicant, a non-profit company who campaigned against animal cruelty, sought a declaration of incompatibility for section 321(2) of the 2003 Act, which prevented adverts with political purposes, as an unjustified restraint on the right of . .
At first instance – Animal Defenders International, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Admn 4-Dec-2006
The court was asked ‘whether a domestic statutory prohibition of political advertising on television and radio violated the human right of would-be political advertisers to freedom of expression through those media. ‘
Held: A declaration of . .
Statement of Facts – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.428433
The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his attackers Asian. The claimants sought disclosure of the school’s disciplinary records unredacted so that the racial origins could be identified. The school, reacted saying that beyond disclosing the names of the attackers, the remaining names were protected by confidence.
Held: Some requests were too wide to satisfy the need for certainty. Others would require specific justification to support the interference with the particular privacy of children.
Nicol J
[2009] EWHC 1140 (QB)
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited – Kenny, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court, Leeds City Council Admn 5-Dec-2003
In cases involving children, Article 3 provides that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, not the primary consideration.
The court looked at the test for making an interim ASBO: ‘Consideration of whether it is just to . .
Cited – Todd v Crown Prosecution Service; T v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; Todd v DPP QBD 6-Oct-2003
The defendant had been under 18 at the commencement of proceedings but attained 18 during them. The newspaper was granted leave to refer to him by name upon his becoming 18.
Held: Denying the appeal. The balance between the freedom of the . .
See Also – Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 5-Feb-2010
The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right . .
See Also – Webster and Others v The Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 2-Mar-2010
The court considered whether costs should be payable on a standard or indemnity basis. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346752
Application for judicial review of the refusal of the Home Secretary to grant leave to remain. The claim for leave and for judicial review is based on Article 8 grounds.
Stanley Burnton J
[2008] EWHC 312 (admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346716
22420/93, [1997] ECHR 187
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346582
25759/04, [1997] ECHR 182
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346572
27436/95, [1997] ECHR 180
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346584