Citations:
37976/06, [2009] ECHR 399
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316655
37976/06, [2009] ECHR 399
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316655
7435/04, [2009] ECHR 397
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316658
22683/04, [2009] ECHR 371
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316620
7638/02, [2009] ECHR 395
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316646
8782/02, [2009] ECHR 394
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316648
75/07, [2009] ECHR 400
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316653
[2009] ECHR 396, 20482/03
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.316651
55722/00, [2009] ECHR 265
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291873
21252/04, [2009] ECHR 282
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291842
27248/03, [2009] ECHR 268
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291866
4750/04, [2009] ECHR 213
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291848
20727/04, [2009] ECHR 270
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291854
11982/02, [2009] ECHR 253
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291869
17789/07, [2009] ECHR 215
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291827
3891/03, [2009] ECHR 261, [2009] ECHR 271
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291871
30019/05, [2009] ECHR 259
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291868
7654/02, [2009] ECHR 266
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291853
25198/02, [2009] ECHR 256
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited – Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-May-2009
The appellant had been ostentatiously photographed by the police as he left a company general meeting. He was a peaceful and lawful objector to the Arms Trade. He appealed against refusal of an order for the records to be destroyed. The police had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291862
5297/03, [2009] ECHR 211
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291834
41008/04, [2009] ECHR 216
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Dimitar Iliev Gerdjikov v Bulgaria ECHR 4-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291812
18158/07, [2009] ECHR 274
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291851
3514/02, [2009] ECHR 255
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291859
3811/02, [2009] ECHR 264
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291856
56753/00, [2009] ECHR 260
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291857
13645/05, [2009] ECHR 257
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291811
The claimant, during his career had written private diaries, including minutes of secret political meetings. As he stepped down from leadership, he began to arrange publication. Before this was complete, the defendant published extracts. He complained of breach of copyright.
Held: The claim succeeded. The VC granted a final injunction against any further infringement and directed disclosure of information to enable Mr Ashdown to exercise his right of election between damages and an account of profits. The Human Rights Act did not operate to extend the defences available to a claim for copyright infringement, on the basis that it was needed to provide for freedom of the press. The needs of the right to freedom of expression were satisfied by the defences available under the Act, including that of fair dealing, and there was no need to consider the individual facts of each situation. The need to have particular regard to an element did not mean that it should be given extra weight.
Sir Andrew Morritt V-C considered the meaning of ‘criticism and review’, saying: ‘I accept, of course, that the expression ‘criticism and review’ is of wide import. Cf Robert Walker LJ in Pro Sieben Media AG v. Carlton UK Television Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 605, 614G. Likewise I accept that it is necessary to have regard to the true purpose of the work. Is it ‘a genuine piece of criticism or review, or is it something else, such as the attempt to dress up the infringement of another’s copyright in the guise of criticism, and so profit unfairly from another’s work’? Cf Henry LJ in Time Warner Entertainments Co LP v. Channel Four Television Corpn plc [1994] EMLR 1, 14. But what is required is that the copying shall take place as part of and for the purpose of criticising and reviewing the work. The work is the minute. But the articles are not criticising or reviewing the minute: they are criticising or reviewing the actions of the Prime Minister and the claimant in October 1997′
Sir Andrew Morritt VC
Times 06-Feb-2001, Gazette 22-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 28, [2001] 2 WLR 967
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Cited – Time Warner Entertainments LP v Channel Four Television Corporation plc CA 1994
In testing whether a defence to copyright infringement of fair dealing succeeds, the court can take note of the actual purpose of the work, and will look carefully to verify the claimed purpose: ‘it is necessary to have regard to the true purpose of . .
Appeal from – Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-Jul-2001
The appellant complained that a part of his confidential diaries had been republished without his consent by the defendant newspaper group. The defendant appealed, saying that the publication was fair dealing.
Held: The exceptions within the . .
Cited – Fraser-Woodward Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation Brighter Pictures Ltd ChD 23-Mar-2005
The claimant asserted infringement of copyright by the defendants in photographs of the family of David Beckham. The defendant admitted using the photographs but asserted that no permission was required since the use was a fair dealing.
Held: . .
Cited – Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
Cited – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD 26-Nov-2010
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.77890
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, because he was a man, he was denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows.
Lech Garlicki, President
28045/02, [2009] ECHR 192
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280476
627/59, [1961] ECHR 4
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280508
45049/98, [1998] ECHR 116
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280491
599/59, [1961] ECHR 3
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280507
(Press release) The court considered the rights when photographs were taken in public: ‘the court finds that it is not insignificant that the photographer was able to keep the negatives of the offending photographs, in spite of the express request of the applicants, who exercised parental authority, that the negatives be delivered up to them. Admittedly, the photographs simply showed a face-on portrait of the baby and did not show the applicants’ son in a state that could be regarded as degrading, or in general as capable of infringing his personality rights. However, the key issue in the present case is not the nature, harmless or otherwise, of the applicants’ son’s representation on the offending photographs, but the fact that the photographer kept them without the applicants’ consent. The baby’s image was thus retained in the hands of the photographer in an identifiable form with the possibility of subsequent use against the wishes of the person concerned and/or his parents (see, mutatis mutandis, PG and JH v The United Kingdom 46 EHRR 1272, para 57).’ and ‘A person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential components of personal development and presupposes the right to control the use of that image. Whilst in most cases the right to control such use involves the possibility for an individual to refuse publication of his or her image, it also covers the individual’s right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image by another person. As a person’s image is one of the characteristics attached to his or her personality, its effective protection presupposes, in principle and in circumstances such as those of the present case . . , obtaining the consent of the person concerned at the time the picture is taken and not simply if and when it is published. Otherwise an essential attribute of personality would be retained in the hands of a third party and the person concerned would have no control over any subsequent use of the image.’
1234/05, [2009] ECHR 200, 27 BHRC 420, [2009] EMLR 16
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Cited – JR38, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 1-Jul-2015
The appellant was now 18 years old. In July 2010 two newspapers published an image of him. He was at that time barely 14 years old. These photographs had been published by the newspapers at the request of the police. The publication of the . .
Cited – L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280458
913/60, [1961] ECHR 5
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280506
1127/61, [1961] ECHR 7
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280505
ECHR Admissibility – Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention: The respect of this provision may create positive obligations for the State. The wording ‘either alone or in community with others’ does not leave a choice to the public authorities between two alternative obligations.
In view of the requirements of the education system the authorities do not disregard a teacher’s freedom of religion if they refuse him a re-arrangement of the school time-table so that he may practice his religion, if he has previously accepted his employment without making any reservations in this respect.
Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention : No appearance of discrimination, as regards the school time-table between teachers belonging to different religions.
Competence ratione materiae of the Commission : The Convention does not. as such, guarantee the right to hold a position in public service. The dismissal of an official may, however, come within the ambit of a provision of the Convention such as Article 9 or 10 by virtue of certain of its aspects and under certain circumstances.
8160/78, [1981] ECHR 9, (1982) 4 EHRR 126
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280501
25133/06, [2009] ECHR 182
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280389
9761/03, [2009] ECHR 144
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280358
20532/05, [2009] ECHR 151
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280325
39163/06, [2009] ECHR 47
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280317
16162/90, [2009] ECHR 98
European Convention on Human Rights
See Also – Alexandrou v Turkey ECHR 28-Jul-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280285
3057/04, [2009] ECHR 145
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280316
37531/05, [2009] ECHR 148
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280324
47521/06, [2009] ECHR 150
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280387
47523/06, [2009] ECHR 149
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280363
18364/91, [2009] ECHR 162
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – Ioannou v Turkey ECHR 22-Jun-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280329
42121/04, [2008] ECHR 146
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280280
47522/06, [2009] ECHR 147
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280332
38945/05, [2009] ECHR 152
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280368
‘The action arises out of the rules relating to immigration in the United Kingdom, and raises sharply the question of whether the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights are directly enforceable in the Scottish Courts.’
Lord Ross
[1980] ScotCS CSOH – 5, [1980] 3 CMLR 79, 1980 SC 319, 1981 SLT 322
Scotland
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279517
The Commission declared admissible a complaint from a Broadmoor patient who had been secluded for five weeks after a fire. A friendly settlement was reached, without admission of liability but on the basis that new guidelines for the use of seclusion would be issued, as indeed they were.
(1980) 3 EHRR 131
Human Rights
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185209
The Attorney-General sought to restrain the publication of a book which she said would prejudice the defendants in a forthcoming criminal trial. The publisher said that a restraint would be a disproportionate interference in its Article 10 rights.
Held: The court considered the proper reluctance to restrain an anticipated contempt of court.
Tugendhat J
[2009] EWHC 1727 (QB), [2010] EMLR 9
European Convention on Human Rights 10, Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 3) CA 1992
To found a complaint of contempt the risk arising from the publication must be practical rather than theoretical or illusory. Publicity concerning a named defendant before a jury during the jury trial of another charge did not give rise to a serious . .
Cited – Leary v Britiah Broadcasting Corporatin CA 29-Sep-1989
Lord Donaldson MR considered an application for an injunction to prevent a publication which it was said would create a contempt of court, and said: ‘I am very concerned that no one should think that on a speculative basis you can go to the courts . .
Cited – Attorney General v MGN Limited CA 1997
There had been, over some years, ‘saturation coverage’ of the relationship between a television personality and her boyfriend. Disclosures were made about his violence and his previous convictions. He came to be arrested and charged with a serious . .
Cited – Attorney-General v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
When considering a complaint of contempt of court against a newspaper, it should be recognised that any criminal trial, by its very nature, causes all involved in it to become progressively more inward looking, with the capacity to study the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v English HL 1981
The risk of impediment or prejudice to a trial from a publication has to be assessed at the date of publication. ‘Substantial risk’ in section 2(2) means a risk which is more than remote. Lord Diplock said: ‘Next for consideration is the . .
Cited – Attorney General v Independent Television News and Others CA 1995
Leggatt LJ said that counsel for the Attorney General was correct when he submitted that: ‘It does not follow that because a risk had been created by the broadcast, further publication in newspapers would not create fresh and added risk of . .
Cited – Attorney General v MGN Limited CA 1997
There had been, over some years, ‘saturation coverage’ of the relationship between a television personality and her boyfriend. Disclosures were made about his violence and his previous convictions. He came to be arrested and charged with a serious . .
Cited – Attorney-General v British Broadcasting Corporation; Same v Hat Trick Productions Ltd CA 11-Jun-1996
The mention of a case on a television programme remained a contempt of court, despite the humorous context given to the remarks in the broadcast.
Auld LJ said: ‘The degree of risk of impact of a publication on a trial and the extent of that . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.376265
The court noted that it had accepted appeals by 342 Tamils against being returned to Sri Lanka from the UK for fear of ill-treatment or persecution since 2007. It did so again.
L Garlicki, President and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, J. Sikuta, P. Hirvela and L. Bianku
[2008] ECHR 616, 25904/07, Times 28-Jul-2008
European Convention on Human Rights 2 3
Human Rights
See Also – NA v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jun-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279115
[2002] UKIAT 01053
England and Wales
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279068
The applicant complained that he had been detained in appalling conditions, that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and that his case had not been heard in public.
28617/03, [2008] ECHR 1580
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278481
33755/06, [2008] ECHR 1530, [2009] ECHR 1728
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278471
The applicants alleged that their relative had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 6 March 2002. They complained under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 and 14.
3026/03, [2008] ECHR 1598
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278476
The applicant alleged that her son had disappeared following his unacknowledged detention and that there had been no adequate investigation into the matter. She also claimed that she had suffered mentally on account of these events and complained of the lack of effective remedies in respect of those violations. She relied on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention.
27233/03, [2008] ECHR 1599
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278482
13566/02, [2008] ECHR 1594
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278477
The applicant alleged that her husband had been killed by Russian military servicemen, that domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the crime and that no effective domestic remedies were available to her in respect of these violations of the Convention.
14800/04, [2008] ECHR 1597
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278485
34848/07, [2008] ECHR 1574
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
See Also – O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 14-Dec-2010
. .
See Also – O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Dec-2011
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278464
28674/03, [2008] ECHR 1531
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278465
The applicant complained of the length of time taken by the criminal proceedings against him.
4026/03, [2008] ECHR 1595
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278480
3885/04, [2008] ECHR 1582
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278505
44036/02, [2008] ECHR 1578
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278474
20953/06, [2008] ECHR 1513
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278438
The Court emphasised the duty of the press to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest, but noted that: ‘a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts – even if controversial – capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society and making tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’;
Francoise Tulkens, P
(2009) 48 EHRR 53, [2009] EMLR 7, 36919/02, [2008] ECHR 1526, 27 BHRC 389
European Convention on Human Rights 10
See Also – Armonas v Lithuania ECHR 2-Dec-2010
. .
Cited – PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd SC 19-May-2016
The appellants had applied for restrictions on the publication of stories about their extra marital affairs. The Court of Appeal had removed the restrictions on the basis that the story had been widely spread outside the jurisdiction both on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278443
38626/08, [2008] ECHR 1522
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278386
49718/06, [2008] ECHR 1510
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278439
26634/07, [2008] ECHR 1509
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278397
Karel Jungwiert, P
23154/07, [2008] ECHR 1514
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278395
3023/03, [2008] ECHR 1536
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278453
26172/08, [2008] ECHR 1519
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278372
An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the additional protection of the human rights convention. Necessarily, the circumstances from which protection was sought were ones where proof will not be easily found. There is no overriding test within domestic law for deciding whether proceedings are civil or criminal. The procedure here was one generally used for civil proceedings, and no punishment was properly involved at this stage. At most there would be a restriction on activities of those subject to the order. Lord Woolf said: ‘The significance of whether the proceedings are civil or criminal arises because of the difficulty that exists in relation to the proof of the sort of conduct against which section 1 is designed to provide protection. Understandably, in a locality those who are subject to anti-social behaviour are chary about giving evidence in criminal proceedings. It is in particular because of those difficulties that, after a consultation process, the legislation which is contained in Part 1 of the 1998 Act was passed. The object of making the proof of conduct which is anti-social more easy to prove would be defeated if in fact the proceedings were criminal. Then the normal rules of evidence which apply to criminal proceedings would have to be complied with and furthermore the proceedings would be subject to the additional protection provided by Article 6 of the European Convention in relation to criminal proceedings.’
Lord Woolf
Gazette 11-Jan-2001, Times 22-Dec-2000, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2000] EWHC 565 (QB)
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, European Convention on Human Rights 5.1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Rogers (Legal Professional Privilege) Admn 2-Feb-1999
The police had sought disclosure from the applicant’s solicitors of records of the time at which the applicant arrived at the solicitors’ premises on a particular date and like documents.
Held: Such records are not privileged because they did . .
Appeal from – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Cited – Regina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2003
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .
At First Instance – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87261
871/02, [2008] ECHR 1456
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278187
30352/03, [2008] ECHR 1267
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278160
28668/03, [2008] ECHR 1225
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278200
32803/02, [2008] ECHR 1347
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278075
23922/04, [2008] ECHR 1342
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277979
47591/07, [2008] ECHR 1486
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277989
29869/07, [2008] ECHR 1300
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278116
The applicant had been attacked and beaten by skinheads shouting racial abuse. He complained that as a Roma, the police had failed through race discrimination properly to investigate his complaint.
Held: The court repeated the statement that article 3 may give rise to a positive obligation to conduct an official investigation. The obligation on the state to conduct an official investigation is one of means, not result
This was not, in principle, limited to cases of ill-treatment by state agents. The court said: ‘ . . the court reiterates that the scope of the . . obligation by the state is one of means, not of result; the authorities must have taken all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context.’
40116/02, [2007] ECHR 1159, (2007) 23 BHRC 24, (2009) 49 EHRR 18
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Yasa v Turkey ECHR 2-Sep-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 2; Violation of Art. 2 (effective investigation); . .
Cited – Menson v United Kingdom ECHR 6-May-2003
There had been a racist attack. The victim was set on fire and killed in the street by assailants. His relatives sought compensation. However the assailants were not agents of the state and they were duly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. No . .
Cited – Re E (A Child); E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Another (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and others intervening) HL 12-Nov-2008
(Northern Ireland) Children had been taken to school in the face of vehement protests from Loyalists. The parents complained that the police had failed to protect them properly, since the behaviour was so bad as to amount to inhuman or degrading . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277876
28558/95, [2008] ECHR 1107
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277456
42850/04, [2008] ECHR 1101
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277431
77925/01, [2008] ECHR 1113
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277450
13904/02, [2008] ECHR 1173
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277488
37071/03, [2008] ECHR 1176
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277416
The deceased bankrupt’s Autralian trustees sought disclosure of documents recording his dealings in the UK. Third party Swiss lawyers now sought to intervene to say that such disclosure would breach the confidence of many of their clients. Redactions were agreed, and the court now looked to the costs.
Held: The interveners’ human rights had been engaged by the request. The court considered the technical meaning of correspondence within article 8, saying ‘To construe the term as applying only to letters still in the possession of the writer or in the process of transmission to the intended recipient appears unduly restrictive. In ordinary parlance, the term would be expected to apply to exchanges of letters in whosever hands they happened to be. ‘ and the interveners’ Article 8 rights are engaged by an application for production of documents in the hands of Verfides that were generated in the course of, or otherwise relate to, the interveners’ business activities. After initial doubts, the interveners had conducted their objections properly. Trustees and interveners were to bear their own costs.
John Martin, QC
[2008] EWHC 2609 (Ch)
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277551
53401/99, [2003] ECHR 165
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277247
KAID v. FRANCE (No. 2) – 48943/99, [2003] ECHR 623
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277271
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue of discrimination arise under article 14.
However, the appendix with instructions for entry clearance officers considering the situation was inadequate: ‘Rather than treating the best interests of children as a primary consideration, taking account of the factors summarised in Jeunesse, they lay down a highly prescriptive criterion requiring ‘factors . . that can only be alleviated by the presence of the applicant in the UK’, such as support during a major medical procedure, or ‘prevention of abandonment where there is no other family member . . ‘. ‘
and ‘while the rules as such are not open to challenge, there are aspects of the instructions to entry clearance officers which require revision to ensure that the decisions made by them are consistent with their duties under the HRA. In the light of that conclusion, the Secretary of State might wish to consider whether it would be more efficient to revise the rules themselves, to indicate the circumstances in which alternative sources of funding should or might be taken into account, rather than simply to revise the guidance.’
‘The MIR is part of an overall strategy aimed at reducing net migration. Its particular aims are no doubt entirely legitimate: to ensure, so far as practicable, that the couple do not have recourse to welfare benefits and have sufficient resources to be able to play a full part in British life. As accepted by the courts below, those aims are sufficient to justify the interference with, or lack of respect for, the article 8 right . . we would also reject the suggestion that there is no rational connection between those legitimate aims and the particular income threshold chosen. The work of the Migration Advisory Committee is a model of economic rationality. Even though it had to make certain assumptions, it was careful to identify and rationalise these. Making those assumptions, it arrived at an income figure above which the couple would not have any recourse to welfare benefits, including tax credits and housing benefits. That being a legitimate aim, it is also not possible to say that a lesser threshold, and thus a less intrusive measure, should have been adopted. It may, of course, have a disproportionate effect in the particular circumstances of an individual case, but that is not the claim currently before us . . ‘
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 10, [2017] 1 WLR 771, [2017] Imm AR 729, [2017] HRLR 6, [2017] WLR(D) 124, [2017] INLR 575, UKSC 2015/0011
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video
Immigration Rules, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Appeal from – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 11-Jul-2014
Aikens LJ said: ‘The court would not be entitled to strike down the rule unless satisfied that it was incapable of being operated in a proportionate way and so was inherently unjustified in all or nearly all cases.’ and ‘If the particular . .
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for The Home Department v SS (Congo) and Others CA 23-Apr-2015
The court considered the proper approach to be adopted, in light of new Immigration Rules promulgated in July 2012, to applications for leave to enter the United Kingdom by persons who are family members of someone already present here. . .
Cited – KA and others (Adequacy of Maintenance) Pakistan IAT 4-Sep-2006
The Tribunal adopted the level of income support as the test of adequate maintenance – at that level it could not be said that the family were not properly maintained but neither should it be contemplated that immigrants would live below that level. . .
Cited – AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer CA 16-Oct-2008
When applying for entry under a sponsorship arrangement, the three applicable rules disallowed third party support.
Laws LJ said: ‘The immigrant’s article 8 rights will (must be) protected by the Secretary of State and the court whether or not . .
At First Instance – MM and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 5-Jul-2013
WLRD When applied to either recognised refugees or British citizens Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 395), as inserted, which prevented entry clearance to a party to a marriage . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Ali and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
Cited – Boultif v Switzerland ECHR 2-Aug-2001
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 . .
Cited – Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 1-Dec-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection dismissed (estoppel); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage – claim dismissed; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Rodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v The Netherlands ECHR 31-Jan-2006
A Brazilian mother came to the Netherlands in 1994 and set up home with a Dutch national but not applying for a residence permit. In 1996 they had a daughter who became a Dutch national. In 1997 they split up and the daughter remained with her . .
Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Uner v The Netherlands ECHR 18-Oct-2006
(Grand Chamber) The court considered the application of article 8 considerations in extradition and similar proceedings, and said: ‘the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any . .
Cited – Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .
Cited – Nunez v Norway ECHR 28-Jun-2011
Article 8 rights can be sufficient to tip the balance in favour against deportation of an immigrant. . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Cited – IAA And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Jan-2014
. .
Cited – Jeunesse v The Netherlands ECHR 3-Oct-2014
(Grand Chamber) Although the applicant had married and had three children while her immigration status in the Netherlands was precarious, there were exceptional circumstances such that a fair balance had not been struck between the competing . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Ahmut v The Netherlands ECHR 28-Nov-1996
The bond between natural parents and their children is a strong indicator of the existence of family life: ‘from the moment of the child’s birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to ‘family life’, . .
Cited – Sen v The Netherlands ECHR 21-Dec-2001
. .
Cited – Konstatinov v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Apr-2007
The applicant, of Roma origin with a troubled and criminal history. The Court considered the minister’s refusal of her request for a residence permit to enable her to live with her husband (entitled to permanent residence since 1988) and their son . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – Baiai and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2008
In order to prevent marriages of convenience in the UK the Secretary of State introduced a scheme under which certain persons subject to immigration control required her written permission to marry and would not receive it unless they were present . .
Cited – Y v Russia ECHR 4-Dec-2008
The applicants complained about the first applicant’s deportation to China, about his unlawful detention, about the disruption of their family life and about the absence of domestic remedies. They referred to Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the . .
Cited – O’Donoghue and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 14-Dec-2010
. .
Cited – Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
Cited – Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
Cited – SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-May-2013
Laws LJ’s observed that for a claim under article 8 of the ECHR to prevail, it must be ‘a very strong claim indeed’ . .
Cited – EB (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The claimant arrived as a child from Kosovo in 1999. He said that the decision after so long, it would breach his human rights now to order his return.
Held: The adjudicator had failed to address the effect of delay. That was a relevant . .
Cited – AM (Ethiopia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer CA 16-Oct-2008
When applying for entry under a sponsorship arrangement, the three applicable rules disallowed third party support.
Laws LJ said: ‘The immigrant’s article 8 rights will (must be) protected by the Secretary of State and the court whether or not . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another SC 17-Apr-2013
The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 . .
Cited – SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 22-May-2013
Laws LJ’s observed that for a claim under article 8 of the ECHR to prevail, it must be ‘a very strong claim indeed’ . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 11-Jul-2014
Aikens LJ said: ‘The court would not be entitled to strike down the rule unless satisfied that it was incapable of being operated in a proportionate way and so was inherently unjustified in all or nearly all cases.’ and ‘If the particular . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for The Home Department v SS (Congo) and Others CA 23-Apr-2015
The court considered the proper approach to be adopted, in light of new Immigration Rules promulgated in July 2012, to applications for leave to enter the United Kingdom by persons who are family members of someone already present here. . .
Cited – Mukarkar v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 25-Jul-2006
The applicant, a Yemeni citizen, obtained entry clearance as a visitor by deception and then unsuccessfully sought leave to remain as a dependent relative of his many children settled here. He had numerous ailments and his health was continuing to . .
Cited – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.575312
The claimants had wanted to make a peaceful anti-monarchist demonstration during the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. They complained that the actions of the respondent police infringed their human rights by preventing that demonstration.
Held: The appeal failed.
The fundamental principle underlying article 5 is the need to protect the individual from arbitrary detention, and an essential part of that protection is timely judicial control, but at the same time article 5 must not be interpreted in such a way as would make it impracticable for the police to perform their duty to maintain public order and protect the lives and property of others. These twin requirements are not contradictory but complementary
Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Dyson
[2017] UKSC 9, [2017] WLR(D) 101, [2017] 2 WLR 824, [2017] 1 AC 25
England and Wales
Cited – Albert v Lavin HL 3-Dec-1981
An off duty and out of uniform police officer attempted to restrain the defendant jumping ahead of a bus queue. The defendant struggled, and continued to do so even after being told that of the officer’s status. He said he had not believed that he . .
Appeal from – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2014
The claimants said that the restrictive tactics used by the respondent when policing crowds at a royal wedding.
Held: The appeals failed. The police had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the claimants were likely to cause a breach of the . .
Cited – Steel and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-1998
The several applicants had been arrested in different circumstances and each charged with breach of the peace contrary to common law. Under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, the court can bind over a Defendant to keep the peace, if the Defendant . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
At First Instance – Hicks and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 18-Jul-2012
The claimants challnged the lawfulness of decisions made by the respondent as to the policing of events surrounding the Royal Wedding in April 2011. . .
Not followed – Ostendorf v Germany ECHR 7-Mar-2013
The applicant was registered on a German database as a person prepared to use violence in the context of sports events. He travelled with a group of others from Bremen to Frankfurt in order to attend a football match. They were kept under police . .
Cited – Lawless v Ireland (No 3) ECHR 1-Jul-1961
The Irish Government derogated from article 5 in July 1957 in order to permit detention without charge or trial, and the applicant was detained between July and December 1957. He could have obtained his release by undertaking to observe the law and . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Cited – Brogan and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Nov-1988
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
The four applicants . .
Incomplete – Jecius v Lithuania ECHR 31-Jul-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Violation of Art. 5-1 as regards the applicant
The applicant complained of violation of his article 5 rights . .
Cited – Nicol and Selvanayagam v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jan-2001
(Admissibility) The applicants took part in an anti-fishing protest at an angling match on 28 May 1994. Their aim was to sabotage the match by throwing twigs in the water close to the anglers’ hooks so as to disturb the surface, while other . .
Cited – Schwabe and MG v Germany ECHR 1-Dec-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.575310
The court was asked: ‘Is it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights to deny British citizenship to the child of a British father and a non-British mother simply because they were not married to one another at the time of his birth or at any time thereafter? If the parents had been married to one another, their child would have been a British citizen. If the mother had been British and the father non-British, their child would have been a British citizen. If the child had been born after 1 July 2006 he would have been a British citizen. The child is not responsible for the marital status of his parents or the date of his birth, yet it is he who suffers the consequences.’
Held: The appeal was allowed. The liability to deportation by reason of the accident of his birth outside wedlock was unlawfully discriminatory.
The right to a nationality is not as such a Convention right but denial of citizenship when it has
important effects on a person’s identity falls within the ambit of article 8 and so triggers the application
of the prohibition of discrimination in article 14. Birth outside wedlock is a ‘status’ for the
purpose of article 14 and falls within the class of ‘suspect’ grounds where very weighty reasons are
required to justify discrimination. In Mr Johnson’s case, what needed to be justified was his
current liability to deportation when he would not be so liable but for the accident of birth outside
wedlock for which he was not responsible. No justification had been suggested for this and it cannot
therefore be said that his claim that deportation would breach his Convention rights was clearly unfounded.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 56, UKSC 2016/0042, [2016] WLR(D) 531, [2017] AC 365, [2017] INLR 235, [2016] 3 WLR 1267, [2017] Imm AR 306, 41 BHRC 711
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited – Genovese v Malta ECHR 11-Oct-2011
The applicant was illegitimate, born to a British mother and a Maltese father. Paternity had been established scientifically and in judicial proceedings. The father refused to recognise his son on the birth certificate, and the applicant’s mother . .
At Admn – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 17-Jul-2014
The court was asked whether the Claimant’s proposed deportation to Jamaica, following his conviction and imprisonment for a very serious criminal offence, involves a violation of article 14 in conjunction with article 8 of the European Convention on . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Jan-2016
The appellant was Jamaican by birth, but had lived here with his British father since the age of four. Had his parents been married, he would have had British nationality. As he grew to an adult he was convicted on several serious matters. He now . .
At CA – Johnson, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Jan-2016
The appellant was Jamaican by birth, but had lived here with his British father since the age of four. Had his parents been married, he would have had British nationality. As he grew to an adult he was convicted on several serious matters. He now . .
Cited – K v Netherlands ECHR 1-Jul-1985
Discrimination; Immigration; Nationality; Right to respect for private and family life . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .
Cited – Karassev v Finland ECHR 12-Jan-1999
Admissibility. The arbitrary denial of citizenship may violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8. The Convention did not guarantee the right to acquire a particular nationality. Nevertheless, it did ‘not exclude that an arbitrary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.570161
WLRD When applied to either recognised refugees or British citizens Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 395), as inserted, which prevented entry clearance to a party to a marriage where the income of the sponsor did not meet the minimum threshold, was a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Blake J
[2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 280, [2014] Imm AR 245, [2014] 1 WLR 2306
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Appeal from – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another CA 11-Jul-2014
Aikens LJ said: ‘The court would not be entitled to strike down the rule unless satisfied that it was incapable of being operated in a proportionate way and so was inherently unjustified in all or nearly all cases.’ and ‘If the particular . .
At First Instance – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.512208
32000/06 – Committee Judgment (French Text), [2013] ECHR 459
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.510121
45476/04 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 457
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.510120
The claimant the son of a former fascist leader, sought damages for breach of confidence and a right to a private life after the defendant newspaper published stories alleging that his involvement with prostitutes had included nazi rituals. The defendant argued that the claimant’s right to a private life was overborn by greater public interest.
Held: The claim succeeded. To establish a claim in confidence he had to show a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that that right was not set aside by any balancing exercise involving freedom of expression. There had been a breach of the right of private life by the woman who had recorded the events. Here there was no greater good served by publication. The sado-masochism was consensual and involved no threat or children, and involved no issue of public interest. Nor here were there any public claims of impropriety by the claimant.
Eady J
[2008] EWHC 2341 (QB), Times 30-Jul-2008
European Convention on Human Rights 10
See Also – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Apr-2008
The claimant sought to continue an interim injunction requiring the defendant not to publish a film on its website.
Held: A claimant’s Article 8 rights may be engaged even where the information in question has been previously publicised. . .
See Also – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-2009
. .
See Also – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276983
28110/02, [2008] ECHR 905
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276612
12037/03, [2008] ECHR 909
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276597
19879/02, [2008] ECHR 863
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276554
5173/05, [2008] ECHR 921, [2009] ECHR 1658
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276542
69519/01, [2008] ECHR 862, [2009] ECHR 1616
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276544