The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that she had not received a letter informing her of the consequences of not accepting an offer of accomodation.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The case of Runa Begum had not decided whether a statutory right to a benefit was a civil right. Lord Hope said that a case where the award of services or benefits in kind is not an individual right of which the applicant can consider himself the holder, but is dependent upon a series of evaluative judgments by the provider as to whether the statutory criteria are satisfied and how the need for it ought to be met, do not engage article 6(1).
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr
[2010] UKSC 8, UKSC 2009/0050, Times 19-Feb-2010, [2010] 2 WLR 471, [2010] HRLR 18, [2010] 2 All ER 175, [2010] HLR 22, [2010] UKHRR 417, [2010] PTSR 524, [2010] 2 AC 39, [2010] LGR 401
Bailii, SC Summ, SC, Bailii Summary
Housing Act 1996 193, European Convention on Human Rights 6, Homelessness Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Feldbrugge v The Netherlands ECHR 29-May-1986
The court was asked whether the applicant’s entitlement to a statutory sickness allowance, which was a contributory scheme but for which she had not registered due to illness, was a civil right within the meaning of article 6.
Held: The . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 14-Oct-2009
The tenant sought accomodation. The council offered him some but he refused it. The council wrote to explain the effect of a refusal. He now complained that since he could not speak English, the Council had not correctly informed him of the . .
Cited – Salesi v Italy ECHR 26-Feb-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Mennitto v Italy ECHR 5-Oct-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Teteriny v Russia ECHR 30-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Inadmissible as regards second applicant; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award. . .
Cited – Nagovitsyn v Russia ECHR 24-Jan-2008
. .
Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
Cited – Deumeland v Germany ECHR 29-May-1986
Although the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the dispute, its decision was ‘capable of affecting the outcome of the claim’.
The court considered a widow’s supplementary pension arising from her husband’s death . .
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, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Woonbron Volkshuisvestingsgroep v The Netherlands ECHR 18-Jun-2002
Decisions about state subsidies to housing associations do not raise issues about civil rights. . .
Cited – Associazione Nazionale Reduci Dalla Prigionia Dall’Internamento E Dalla Guerra Di Liberazione v Germany ECHR 4-Sep-2007
The applicants complained that they had claims for compensation for forced labour under German civil law prior to the coming into force in August 2000 of a law, referred to as the Foundation Law, which excluded claims going beyond the benefits . .
Cited – Loiseau v France ECHR 28-Sep-2004
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 6-1.
The court referred to ‘a ‘private right’ which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law’ and to ‘an individual right . .
Cited – Crompton v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2009
The applicant had joined the Territorial Army as a pay and accounts clerk but was made redundant. He claimed redress in respect of his redundancy from his Commanding Officer. There then followed a prolonged series of proceedings which took eleven . .
Cited – Tsfayo v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Nov-2006
The applicant challenged the prodecures for deciding her appeal against the council’s refusal to pay backdated housing benefits. She complained that the availability of judicial review of the decision was not adequate.
Held: The system did not . .
Cited – Bryan v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-1995
Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Cited – Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland ECHR 24-Jun-1993
The court considered a contributory invalidity scheme: ‘today the general rule is that Article 6(1) does apply in the field of social insurance, including even welfare assistance . . State intervention is not sufficient to establish that Article . .
See Also – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 9-Nov-2011
The appellant had sought housing assistance. She had been offered accomodation but refused it as unreasonable. The authority declined further assistance. She now appealed against the refusal of the county court judge to set aside the decision . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
See Also – Fazia Ali v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Oct-2015
The Court considered the duties imposed on housing authorities under Part VII of the 1996 Act.
Held: Article 6.1 did apply, but in any event the procedure applied under the Act conformed to its requirements. . .
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Human Rights
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.401616
