Tag: Human Rights

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Javed, Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Zulfiqar Ali; Regina v Same ex parte Abid Ali: QBD 9 Feb 2001

The Home Secretary had designated Pakistan as a safe country for the return of asylum applicants. The applicants sought to review this decision. The Secretary submitted that the court was not competent to challenge his assessment since it had been approved by Parliament, unless it could be shown that he had acted in bad faith.
Held: The Human Rights Act now places the Courts under a positive duty to give effect to the Convention, and one requirement in particular was a prohibition of torture and in human and degrading treatment. An effective remedy has to be provided to avoid breaches of this right. The court having given detailed consideration to the relevant material, it was clear that the decision to include Pakistan in the list of designated countries could only have been reached on an erroneous view of the facts, of the law or of both. The decision was plainly wrong. The schedule was provided in order to enable unsuccessful claims to be summarily and expeditiously disposed of where there was no risk to the life of person of the asylum seekers. There was in the clearest evidence that the applicants had been tortured in the past and he returned to Pakistan would be likely again to be the subject of torture. Other applicants would be subject to persecution. The declaration was granted.

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88638

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Challenger: QBD 11 Jul 2000

An order was due to come into effect, and there was to be a public enquiry. The applicants sought review of the decision not to provide legal assistance for local objectors, on the grounds that it would prejudice their rights under the Human Rights Act, alleging breach of their rights to a fair trial by inequality of arms.. The court held that it would not be correct to allow a judicial review to give current effect to an Act which itself had not yet come into effect.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88623

Cerin v Croatia: ECHR 15 Nov 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

54727/00, [2001] ECHR 756

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166785

Iwanczuk v Poland: ECHR 15 Nov 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The applicant was ordered to strip naked and was subjected to humiliating abuse by guards when he tried to exercise his right to vote in facilities provided in prison. His complaint of degrading treatment was upheld.

Citations:

(2001) 38 EHRR 148, 25196/94, [2001] ECHR 748, [2001] ECHR 757

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166787

Nemec And Others v Slovakia: ECHR 15 Nov 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

48672/99, [2001] ECHR 758

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166786

Regina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same: CA 13 Nov 2001

The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences carrying mandatory and discretionary life sentences. The decision as to what measure of deterrence was required was not solely a matter suitable for decisions by the courts, but included elements to be considered which looked to wider issues. The exercise of such powers with respect to discretionary lifers had been ruled unlawful. The legislation, following that decision, explicitly excluded tariffs for mandatory lifers, and it was not for the courts to set aside such decisions. The present system might not survive challenge in the Court of Human Rights, but it must be their decision

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2001, Gazette 06-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1698

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Appeal to – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor QBD 27-Feb-2001
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Appeal to – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor QBD 27-Feb-2001
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166778

SBC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13
The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 defendants provided for by section 25 violated article 5(3), insofar as it prohibited the grant of bail to defendants accused of a grave offence after being convicted for a first.

Citations:

(2001) 34 EHRR 619, [2001] ECHR 396, 39360/98, [2001] ECHR 400

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(3), Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 25

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166136

James Murray King v Annie Marie Walden (HM Inspector of Taxes): ChD 12 Jun 2001

A decision to impose a penalty on a taxpayer, involved a charge of a criminal nature, for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention. It was necessary, therefore, to proceed with such a matter quickly. Even so, in the imposition of such penalties, there was no point upon which the burden of proof did not lay on the Crown, and the taxpayer had had opportunity at each stage to have his say. In this case, the matter had taken some five years. This was only just acceptable, and the Revenue should look at some way of fast tracking appeals in such matters.

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001, [2001] EWHC Ch 419, [2001] STC 822

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights art 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
The claimant had been subject to tax penalty proceedings. They continued for more than 14 years.
Held: The length of the proceedings exceeded the time properly to be allowed, and infringed his right to a fair trial. Though the taxpayer himself . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.82788

Pialopoulos And Others v Greece: ECHR 15 Feb 2001

Hudoc Violation of P1-1; Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved

Citations:

[2001] ECHR 92, 37095/97

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Pialopoulos And Others v Greece ECHR 27-Jun-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
Hudoc Judgment (Just . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166031

Kliniecki v Poland: ECHR 21 Dec 2000

The applicant had been accused of fraud in Poland. After conviction he appealed and eventually succeeded. The government offered a friendly settlement which was accepted by the defendant.

Judges:

Ress, P, Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo, Mr L. Caflisch, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr V. Butkevych, Mrs N. Vajic, Mr M. Pellonpaa

Citations:

31387/96, [2000] ECHR 677, [2000] ECHR 686

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166004

G J v Luxembourg: ECHR 26 Oct 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

21156/93, [2000] ECHR 508, [2000] ECHR 510

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165964

Tanli v Turkey: ECHR 10 Apr 2001

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the death; Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the investigation; No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 5; Violation of Art. 13; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 18; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[2001] ECHR 267, 26129/95, [2001] ECHR 270

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166077

Tammer v Estonia: ECHR 6 Feb 2001

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and the self-fulfilment of each individual. Criminal penalties imposed in respect of the reporting of a sexual relationship could not be said to violate Article 10 – notwithstanding that the persons concerned were the Prime Minister and a political aide.

Citations:

41205/98, (2001) 37 EHRR 857, [2001] ECHR 83, (2003) 37 EHRR 43

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – McKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166024

Beer v Austria: ECHR 6 Feb 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[2001] ECHR 81, 30428/96

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor) PC 28-Jun-2005
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166035

Glaser v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Sep 2000

‘The essential object of Article 8 is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities. There may however be positive obligations inherent in an effective ‘respect’ for family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for family life even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals’ rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific steps. In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the state’s margin of appreciation.’ Speed was essential in determining disputes about children.

Citations:

32346/96, (2001) 33 EHRR I, [2001] 1 FLR 153, [2000] ECHR 419, [2000] 3 FCR 193, 2001 Fam LR 103, [2000] Fam Law 880

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Mentioned – F v M FD 1-Apr-2004
The court considered the ‘ongoing debate’ about the court’s role in contact disputes. ‘this case illustrates all too uncomfortably the failings of the system. There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact . .
Cited – Van Colle v Hertfordshire Police QBD 10-Mar-2006
The claimants claimed for the estate of their murdered son. He had been waiting to give evidence in a criminal trial, and had asked the police for support having received threats. Other witnesses had also suffered intimidation including acts of . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165932

L v Finland: ECHR 27 Apr 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings
‘the consideration of what is in the best interests of the child is of crucial importance.’

Judges:

Mr G. Ress

Citations:

[2000] ECHR 175, 25651/94, [2000] ECHR 176, [2000] 2 FLR 118, [2000] Fam Law 536, (2001) 31 EHRR 30, [2000] 3 FCR 219, 31 EHRR 30

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165861

Cornwell v United Kingdom; Leary v United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Apr 2000

Mr Cornwell’s wife had died on 24 October 1989, leaving a dependent child. On 7 February 1997 his representative had ‘contacted’ the Benefits Agency to enquire about widow’s benefits. On 14 February 1997 the Agency ‘answered’ to say that legislation provided only for widows and not widowers. On 28 March 1997 the Agency confirmed that if Mrs Cornwell’s record had been that of a man, her survivor would have been entitled to Widow’s Payment and WMA. The position of the Government was set out in the decision as follows: ‘The Government contest the admissibility of the application insofar as it relates to the period 24 October 1989 to 7 February 1996. They point out that the applicant did not attempt to claim widows’ benefits until 7 February 1997 and that it was only from this date onwards that the legislation was applied to him. Had a woman claimed widows’ benefits on 7 February 1997 in respect of the death of her husband in October 1989, she would have been told that she was out of time for claiming a widow’s payment and that she could only claim widowed mothers’ allowance with effect from 8 February 1996. The UK had agreed to pay the benefit equally until the coming into force of legislation which would correct the situation.

Citations:

Times 10-May-2000, 36578/97, (2000) 27 EHRR CD62, [2000] ECHR 167, [2000] ECHR 168

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165864

Punzelt v The Czech Republic: ECHR 25 Apr 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to length of detention; No violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to refusal of bail; No violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award

Citations:

31315/96, [2000] ECHR 170

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165866

Mattoccia v Italy: ECHR 25 Jul 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the length of proceedings; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award

Citations:

23969/94, [2000] ECHR 383, [2009] ECHR 1680

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165916

Cooke v Austria: ECHR 8 Feb 2000

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

25878/94, [2000] ECHR 63

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165816

Mazurek v France: ECHR 1 Feb 2000

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 14+P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

34406/97, [2000] ECHR 48, (2006) 42 EHRR 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Hand and Another v George ChD 17-Mar-2017
Adopted grandchildren entitled to succession
The court was asked whether the adopted children whose adopting father, the son of the testator, were grandchildren of the testator for the purposes of his will.
Held: The claim succeeded. The defendants, the other beneficiaries were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Children, Wills and Probate

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165807

Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal: ECHR 21 Dec 1999

There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not definitive, as is evidenced by the adverb notamment (in English: ‘any ground such as’) . . the [national] Appeal Court used a distinction dictated by considerations relating to the applicant’s sexual orientation, a distinction which cannot be tolerated under the Convention. Discrimination based on sexuality was covered by the in article 8 prohibition, not because ‘sex’ includes ‘sexuality’ but because the list is not exhaustive.

Citations:

(1999) 31 EHRR 1055, (2001) 31 EHRR 47, 33290/96, [1999] ECHR 176, [2001] 1 FCR 653

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See also – Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 1-Dec-1998
A homosexual claimed that an award of custody of his daughter to her mother was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life, and also with his right to respect for his private life since he was required in respect of his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza CA 5-Nov-2002
The applicant sought to succeed to the tenancy of his deceased homosexual partner as his partner rather than as a member of his family.
Held: A court is bound by any decision within the normal hierachy of domestic authority as to the meaning . .
Mentioned – Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
See also – Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v Portugal ECHR 1-Dec-1998
A homosexual claimed that an award of custody of his daughter to her mother was an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life, and also with his right to respect for his private life since he was required in respect of his . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another FD 12-Apr-2006
The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and Another FD 12-Apr-2006
The petitioner intended to seek a declaration as to her marital status. She and the respondent had married in a civil ceremony in British Columbia in 2003. She sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to section 11(3) of the 1973 Act so . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
Cited – Pearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Cited – Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another ChD 17-Mar-2010
The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165806

Bottazzi v Italy: ECHR 28 Jul 1999

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

34884/97, ECHR 1999-V, ss 30, [1999] ECHR 62, [1999] ECHR 62

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – MC v Italy ECHR 19-Dec-2002
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165737

Rekvenyi v Hungary: ECHR 20 May 1999

Hudoc Grand Chamber – No violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+10; No violation of Art. 14+11 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III
The level of precision required of domestic legislation depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed: ‘whilst certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity and the law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances. Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice.’
Lawfulness ‘implies qualitative requirements in the domestic law such as foreseeability and, generally, an absence of arbitrariness’.

Citations:

[1999] ECHR 31, 25390/94

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165713

T W v Malta: ECHR 29 Apr 1999

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits; Preliminary objection rejected; Violation of Art. 5-3; Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

25644/94, [1999] ECHR 23

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165703

Clooth v Belgium (Article 50): ECHR 5 Mar 1998

Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings

Citations:

[1998] ECHR 15, 12718/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Clooth v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-1991
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165595

Assenov and Others v Bulgaria: ECHR 28 Oct 1998

An allegation of violence by a police officer did require a thorough, impartial and careful investigation by a suitable and independent state authority: ‘The court considers that in these circumstances, where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to ‘secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in . . [the] Convention’, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. This obligation, as with that under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible . . If this were not the case the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity.’

Citations:

24760/94, (1998) 28 EHRR 652, [1998] ECHR 98

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Police Complaints Authority ex parte Green HL 26-Feb-2004
Discovery was sought of statements created during the investigation of a complaint against a police officer. The claimant argued that a police officer had deliberately driven his car at him.
Held: The investigation by a separate police force . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JN CA 14-May-2008
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Morrison v The Independent Police Complaints Commission and Others Admn 26-Oct-2009
The claimant made a complaint of a serious assault by the police, by the use of a Taser. The defendant had referred the complaint to the IPCC, who said that they should investigate it themselves. The claimant said that to accord with his human . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165674

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); Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Not necessary to examine Art. 18; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

22495/93, [1998] 28 EHRR 408, [1998] ECHR 83

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
Cited – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission and Another CA 22-Oct-2008
The court was asked to consider whether the IPCC could investigate the circumstances leading to the arrest of a suspect who fell into a coma after being arrested for being drunk. The IPCC appealed, saying that it did not have jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Secic v Croatia ECHR 31-May-2007
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 . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165653

Georgiadis v Greece: ECHR 29 May 1997

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1997] ECHR 28, 21522/93

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165507

Serves v France: ECHR 20 Oct 1997

Captain Serves was a French officer charged in 1988 before a military court, together with a lieutenant and corporal of his company, with the murder of a civilian in the Central African Republic. In 1989 the proceedings were quashed for procedural irregularity and on 19 April 1990 fresh proceedings were commenced against the lieutenant and the corporal. The charge against Captain Serves was not reinstated until 6 May 1992 and he was convicted in May 1994. During the period while the second charges were pending only against the lieutenant and corporal, Captain Serves was summoned to appear as a witness before the military investigating judge. He refused to take the oath and was fined for failing to give evidence.
Held: Although the first proceedings had been quashed in 1989, the evidence on which that investigation was based remained on the file and Captain Serves remained ‘charged’ with murder within the meaning of Article 6(1): see para. 42. He was therefore entitled to refuse to answer any questions from the judge which might tend to incriminate him. However, he should have taken the oath, heard the questions and refused to answer rather than simply refusing to be sworn. On this ground his complaint was dismissed.

Citations:

[1997] ECHR 82, 20225/92, (1997) 28 EHRR 265, [1997] ECHR 82

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165554

De Haan v The Netherlands: ECHR 26 Aug 1997

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1997] ECHR 47, 22839/93

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165530

Valsamis v Greece: ECHR 18 Dec 1996

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
A child was punished by her school for refusing to attend a National Day parade in contravention of her beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness, to which her parents were also party.
Held: The application failed. Article 9 did not confer a right to exemption from disciplinary rules which applied generally and in a neutral manner and there had been no interference with the child’s right to freedom to manifest her religion or belief.

Citations:

21787/93, [1996] ECHR 72, (1996) 24 EHRR 294, [1996] ECHR 72

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 9

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (K) v Newham London Borough Council and Another QBD 19-Feb-2002
Parents applied for secondary school places, indicating three single sex schools. This was from a clear religious conviction. The local authority allocated another place, without giving reasons, but did provide a pamphlet setting out its policy, . .
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 – X, Regina (on the Application of) v Y School Admn 21-Feb-2007
The court was asked whether a school was entitled to refuse to allow a Muslim girl to wear the niqab full face veil at school. The reasons were ‘first educational factors resulting from a teacher being unable to see the face of the girl with a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165480

Scott v Spain: ECHR 18 Dec 1996

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1996] ECHR 71, 21335/93

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165479

D v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 May 1997

The applicant, an AIDS sufferer, resisted his removal to St Kitts where lack of medical treatment would hasten his death.
Held: The deportation of a convicted person suffering from Aids to a country with less care facilities was inhuman or degrading treatment. ‘In its Vilvarajah and Others judgment and its Soering judgment the Court considered judicial review proceedings to be an effective remedy in relation to the complaints raised under Article 3 in the contexts of deportation and extradition. It was satisfied that English courts could effectively control the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate. It was also accepted that a court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review would have power to quash a decision to expel or deport an individual to a country where it was established that there was a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, on the ground that in all the circumstances of the case the decision was one that no reasonable Secretary of State could take.
The applicant maintained that the effectiveness of the remedy invoked first before the High Court and subsequently before the Court of Appeal was undermined on account of their failure to conduct an independent scrutiny of the facts in order to determine whether they disclosed a real risk that he would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on the reasoning in the Chahal v United Kingdom judgment. However the Court notes that in that case the domestic courts were precluded from reviewing the factual basis underlying the national security considerations invoked by the Home Secretary to justify the expulsion of Mr Chahal. No such considerations arise in the case at issue.’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 2; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

Times 12-May-1997, (1997) 2 BHRC 273, 146/1996/767/964, (1997) 24 EHRR 423, 30240/96, [1997] ECHR 25, (1998) 42 BMLR 149

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 3

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165491

Ferrantelli and Santangelo v Italy: ECHR 7 Aug 1996

The matter of admissibility of evidence is primarily one for the national courts: ‘It [the Court] recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair.’

Citations:

19874/92, [1996] 23 EHRR 288, [1996] ECHR 29

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165437

Efstratiou v Greece: ECHR 18 Dec 1996

ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1996] ECHR 69, 24095/94

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165477

Fischer v Austria: ECHR 26 Apr 1995

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 6-1 (right of access); Violation of Art. 6-1 (publicly); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1995] ECHR 11, 16922/90, [1995] ECHR 11

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165352

Agrotexim and Others v Greece: ECHR 24 Oct 1995

Hudoc Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (ratione temporis); Preliminary objection allowed (victim); Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible, new complaint)
The applicant companies held shares in a company owning development land. The local Council took steps to expropriate the land. The shareholders complained that the company’s rights had been violated and that, in turn, that had adversely affected their rights because of the resulting fall in the value of their shares. The complaint was based on the proposition that the alleged violation of the Brewery’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had affected their own financial interests because of the resulting fall in the value of their shares.
Held: A lifting of the corporate veil so as to disregard the fact that the person directly affected – the Brewery – was a separate legal personality and was (if anyone was) the victim, would be justified only in exceptional circumstances such as where it itself could not have raised the complaint.

Citations:

14807/89, (1996) EHRR 250, [1995] ECHR 42

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Weir and others v Secretary of State for Transport and Another ChD 14-Oct-2005
The claimants were shareholders in Railtrack. They complained that the respondent had abused his position to place the company into receivership so as to avoid paying them compensation on a repurchase of the shares. Mr Byers was accused of ‘targeted . .
Adopted – Humberclyde Finance Group Ltd v Hicks 14-Nov-2001
. .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Company

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165381

Funke v France: ECHR 25 Feb 1993

M. Funke successfully challenged his conviction for failing to provide documents which the customs authorities had demanded of him, on the grounds that his rights under Article 6 had been infringed: ‘The Court notes that the customs secured Mr. Funke’s conviction in order to obtain certain documents which they believed must exist, although they were not certain of the fact. Being unable or unwilling to procure them by some other means, they attempted to compel the applicant himself to provide the evidence of offences he had allegedly committed. The special features of customs law cannot justify such an infringement of the right of ‘anyone charged with a criminal offence’ within the autonomous meaning of this expression in Article 6, to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating itself.’

Citations:

(1993) 16 EHRR 297, 10828/84, [1993] ECHR 7, (1993) Series A No 256-A

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Allen HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant appealed against a finding that he had concealed an emolument, namely accommodation. He said that, as a shadow director of the company within the extended meaning of that phrase under the Act, the deeming provisions under Income Tax . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Not Named (D) ComC 14-May-2003
The Office sought a warrant to enter the respondent’s premises.
Held: The powers which allowed entry by force into the premises by the Office were granted in pursuace of a legitimate aim. The Office had vital responsibility for the maintenance . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Cited – Hafner and Hochstrasser (A Firm), Regina (on the Application of) v Australian Securities and Investments Commission Admn 5-Mar-2008
The Commission renewed its application for a review of a decision on their request for judicial assistance in obtaining evidence from the firm. The firm had produced confidential documents to the court, and not disclosed to the Commission.
Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165248

Saidi v France: ECHR 20 Sep 1993

S had been convicted on the basis of the evidence of drug addicts and in the situation where there was no opportunity to confront the witness.
Held: ‘The court reiterates that the taking of evidence is governed primarily by the rules of domestic law, and that it is in principle for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The court’s task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair. All the evidence must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing, with a view to adversarial argument. However, the use as evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police enquiry and judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with Article 6(3)(d) and (1) provided that the right to the defence had been respected. As a rule these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witness against him either when he was making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings.’ However there had been a breach of Article 6 since the testimony constituted ‘the sole basis’ for the applicant’s conviction, and the lack of any confrontation had deprived the defendant in certain respects of ‘a fair trial’. The court recognised the difficulties of the fight against drug trafficking, but ‘such considerations cannot justify restricting to this extent the rights of the defence of everyone charged with a criminal offence.’

Citations:

[1993] ECHR 39, 14647/89, (1993) 17 EHRR 251

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Illustrative – 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 . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165276

Pine Valley Developments Ltd And Others v Ireland (Article 50): ECHR 9 Feb 1993

Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

12742/87, [1991] ECHR 55, [1993] ECHR 2

Links:

Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165232

Pham Hoang v France: ECHR 25 Sep 1992

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

13191/87, (1992) 16 EHRR 53, [1992] ECHR 61

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165215

Clooth v Belgium: ECHR 12 Dec 1991

Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved

Citations:

[1991] ECHR 71, 12718/87, (1992) 14 EHRR 717

Links:

Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Clooth v Belgium (Article 50) ECHR 5-Mar-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings . .
Cited – Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others QBD 15-Aug-2017
The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165155

Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Oct 1991

Five Tamils were refused asylum in the UK and returned to Sri Lanka but then continued to suffer ill-treatment. Their complaints to Strasbourg were rejected under both Articles 3 and 13, but with regard to Article 3, it held: ‘108. The court’s examination of the existence of a risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 at the relevant time must necessarily be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character of this provision and the fact that it enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society making up the Council of Europe.’ As to Article 13 the court concluded: ‘125. It is not in dispute that the English courts are able in asylum cases to review the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant asylum with reference to the same principles of judicial review as considered in the Soering case and to quash a decision in similar circumstances and that they have done so in decided cases. Indeed the courts have stressed their special responsibility to subject administrative decisions in this area to the most anxious scrutiny where an applicant’s life or liberty may be at risk. Moreover, the practice is that an asylum seeker will not be removed from the U.K. until proceedings are complete once he has obtained leave to apply for judicial review. 126. While it is true that there are limitations on the powers of the courts in judicial review proceedings the Court is of the opinion that these powers, exercisable as they are by the highest tribunals in the land, do provide an effective degree of control over the decisions of the administrative authorities in asylum cases and are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 13.’
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 13.

Citations:

13163/87, 13164/87, (1991) 14 EHRR 248, [1991] ECHR 47, 13165/87

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

Applied – Cruz Varas And Others v Sweden ECHR 20-Mar-1991
Hudoc No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 25-1 ‘Although the present case concerns expulsion as opposed to a decision to extradite, the Court considers that the above [Soering] . .
Appeal from – Vilvarajah and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Oct-1987
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
Cited – TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165139

Borgers v Belgium: ECHR 30 Oct 1991

Hudoc The Court reconsidered the nature of the involvement of the Procureur general’s department in decisions taken by the Belgian Cour de Cassation. The Court sitting in plenary session reached, by a majority, a decision which effectively reversed Delcourt. In doing so the majority observed that the rights of the defence and the principle of equality of arms had: ‘undergone a considerable evaluation in the Court’s case-law, notably in respect of the importance attached to appearances and to the increased sensitivity of the public to the fair administration of justice.’ The Court re-analysed the facts and concluded that the prosecution was unfair in circumstances where the advocate general intervened at the hearing in a manner adverse to an appellant. This was because an appellant had no right of reply and might reasonably think, when the advocate general retired with the Court, that he would further urge that the appeal should be dismissed.

Citations:

[1991] ECHR 46, 12005/86, (1993) 15 EHRR 92

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Not followed – Delcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .

Cited by:

Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165121

Moustaquim v Belgium: ECHR 18 Feb 1991

The applicant was a Moroccan national who arrived in Belgium in 1965 when he was aged under 2. In 1984, nineteen years later, after a career of juvenile crime, he was deported, but the deportation order was suspended in 1989 and he returned to Belgium. He complained that his deportation had violated his right to private and family life under article 8.
Held: There had been interference by a public authority with his right to family life guaranteed in article 8(1) and that this was not justified under article 8(2). The Court rejected a complaint under article 14, holding that the applicant’s position could not be compared with that of Belgian juveniles, since they had a right of abode in their own country and could not be expelled from it.
‘. . the court would reiterate that article 14 safeguards individuals placed in similar situations from any discriminatory differences of treatment in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised in the Convention . . In the instant case the applicant cannot be compared to Belgian juvenile delinquents. The latter have a right of abode in their own country and cannot be expelled from it . .
As for the preferential treatment given to nationals of the other member states of the Communities, there is objective and reasonable justification for it as Belgium belongs, together with those states, to a special legal order.’

Citations:

12313/86, (1991) 13 EHRR 802, [1991] ECHR 3

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Cnvention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
Cited – Nouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165085

Alimena v Italy: ECHR 19 Feb 1991

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

[1991] ECHR 5, 11910/85

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165092

Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Oct 1990

The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A discretionary life sentence in English law was composed of a punitive element followed by a security element giving the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner’s release. In these cases the punitive period had expired and the applicants were entitled to judicial control as guaranteed by Article 5(4). The detention of the applicants after the expiry of the punitive periods of their sentences was compared to the VAN DROOGENBROECK and WEEKS cases: the factors of mental instability and dangerousness are susceptible to change over the passage of time and new issues of lawfulness may arise in the course of detention. It follows that at this phase in the execution of their sentences, the applicants are entitled under Article 5(4) to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their continued detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals and to have the lawfulness of any re-detention determined by a court.

Judges:

Mr R Ryssdal, P

Citations:

11787/85, 11978/86, (1990) 13 EHRR 666, 12009/86, [1990] ECHR 29, (1991) 13 EHRR 666

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)

Citing:

Cited – Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium ECHR 24-Jun-1982
The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for theft. He had a previous convictions and was thought to have a persistent tendency to crime, and was placed at the government’s disposal for 10 years on that ground. This was subject to . .
Cited – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Neil Grant Murray, Mark James Hartley and Steven Simpson v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 19-Sep-1999
The defendants appealed against sentence. The first and second were youths who had been convicted of a vicious and homophobic murder, and had been sentenced to be detained without limit of time. The third had also been convicted of a savage and . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 9-Mar-1999
The appellant pleaded guilty to an assault with a knife upon a stranger. He had a previous conviction for assault causing severe injury and permanent disfigurement, and two previous convictions for inter alia attempted murder and assault. He had . .
Cited – Ansari v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant assaulted and abducted an innocent passer-by, a young woman of 23, in the streets of Aberdeen and drove her, bound and gagged, to his house in Leith where he stripped her naked and assaulted and raped her. He was sentenced to life . .
Cited – Mohammadi v Advocate General Scotland HCJ 2-May-2003
The applicant had claimed asylum. His claim had been rejected and an order made for repatriation to Iran. His appeal was lodged two days out of time. He appealed its rejection. The solicitors accepted full responsibility for the delay.
Held: . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Flynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 18-Mar-2004
PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Blackstock v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
The claimant . .
Mentioned – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2) SC 3-Jul-2013
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system.
Held: The decision . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165090

Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain: ECHR 6 Dec 1988

ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused.

Citations:

10590/83, (1988) 11 EHRR 360, [1988] ECHR 25

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165022

Langborger v Sweden: ECHR 22 Jun 1989

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The involvement of two lay assessors, who were appointed by the Landlord’s Association and by the Tenant’s Association violated Article 6 as both those two bodies had interests in the outcome of the applicant’s case, which were contrary to the interests of the applicant.

Citations:

11179/84, (1990) 12 EHRR 416, [1989] ECHR 11

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6-1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – PD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165032