Aneva and Others v Bulgaria: ECHR 6 Apr 2017

Judgment : Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 – Positive obligation.) – Judgment : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 – Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 8

Citations:

66997/13, [2017] ECHR 334

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.582079

Swift v Secretary of State for Justice: QBD 18 Jul 2012

The Court considered a dependency claim by a person who had cohabited with the deceased for 6 months prior to death. The claim was for a declaration of incompatibility in relation to the 2 year + cohabitee provision in s.1 of the FAA which, the claimant said, discriminated against her and violated her rights under Article 8 and, alternatively, her right not to be discriminated against under Article 14 where rights within the ambit of Article 8 were engaged.
Held: The claim failed.
‘i) the claimaint had to show a direct and immediate link between the restriction on dependency claims to 2 year + cohabitees and the private or family life of the claimant. This may be shown where domestic law was in conflict with an important aspect of personal identity, or where the claim involved a most intimate aspect of private life. Family life was not involved because the claimant’s family life with the deceased was at an end. The circumstances did not show such a link with private life to enable Article 8 to be engaged.
ii) The case did not fall within the ambit of Article 8 either, for broadly the same reasons. Therefore Article 14 was not engaged.
iii) Article 14 would not have availed the claimant anyway because the fact that she fell outside the categories of permitted claimants for dependency under s.1 of the Act did not amount to a status, and Article 14 only prevents discrimination on the grounds of status (whether a status specified in Article 14 or amounting to ‘other status’).
iv) Finally, even if Articles 8 and 14 were engaged then exercising the value judgment described in Wilson referred to at [12] above, it was legitimate for Parliament to confine the liability of tortfeasors in respect of loss caused to individuals who were not the primary victims of the wrongdoing in question.

Judges:

Eadt J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2000 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD 8-Sep-2016
The claimant had cohabited with the deceased: ‘The claimant seeks a declaration in one of two alternative forms:
i) Pursuant to s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 . . that s.1A(2)(a) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 . . is to be read as including . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Human Rights

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462959

Radu v Germany: ECHR 3 Jul 2012

Citations:

20084/07 (Communicated Case), [2012] ECHR 1230

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See AlsoRadu v Germany (Legal Summary) ECHR 16-May-2013
ECHR Article 5-1-a
After conviction
Applicant’s continued placement in psychiatric hospital after expiry of his prison term: no violation
Facts – In 1995 the applicant was convicted of homicide and . .
See AlsoRadu v Germany ECHR 16-May-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462224

Razvyazkin v Russia: ECHR 3 Jul 2012

The Court discussed proportionality in respect of the solitary confinement of a prisoner under Article 8: ‘Given that solitary confinement is a serious restriction of a prisoner’s rights which involves inherent risks to the prisoner, the level of actual or potential harm must be at least equally serious and uniquely capable of being addressed by this means. This is reflected, for example, in most countries having solitary confinement as a sanction only for the most serious disciplinary offences, but the principle must be respected in all uses of the measure. The longer the measure is continued, the stronger must be the reason for it and the more must be done to ensure that it achieves its purpose.’

Citations:

13579/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)), [2012] ECHR 1364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedShahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462103