(Non-admissibility Decision) It was affirmed: ‘that Article 34 of the Convention requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he alleges. That Article does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention; it does not permit individuals to complain against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention. In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment.’
However, a potential victim might yet qualify, but only on production of ‘reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him personally (would) occur; mere suspicion or conjecture (being) insufficient in this respect.’
Citations:
Unreported, 6 November 2001
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 34
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.393383