Human Rights - 1985- 1989

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 174 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Colloza and Rubinat -v- Italy [1985] 7 EHRR 516
1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers

Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 308; 10914/84
1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission ) The first applicant (a Moroccan) had come to the Netherlands and obtained a residence permit on the strength of a permanent relationship with a Dutch woman. That had failed, but he now wished to marry another Dutch national. The applicants complained that they were not to be allowed to marry. They were both present in the Netherlands. They would be prevented from marrying because of a decision to expel the intended husband to Morocco. They then went to Morocco and married. The first applicant then obtained a residence permit to stay with his wife in the Netherlands. Held: The claim was manifestly ill-founded: "Act 12 of the Convention does not guarantee the right to marry in a particular country, or under a particular legal system." The prospect of marriage need not disrupt the ordinary course of immigration control.
	European Convention on Human Rights 12

H -v- United Kingdom 11653-85
1985 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1973 for committing a murder in the course of a robbery. Held: The penalty for this offence at the time it was committed was life imprisonment and thus no issue under Art. 7 (art. 7) arises in this respect. The "penalty" for purposes of Art. 7, para 1 (art. 7-1), must be considered to be that of life imprisonment. Nevertheless as a result of the change in parole policy the applicant would not become eligible for release on parole until he had served 20 years' imprisonment. Although this may give rise to the result that his imprisonment is effectively harsher than if he had been eligible for release on parole at an earlier stage, such matters relate to the execution of the imprisonment as opposed to the "penalty" which remains that of life imprisonment. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the "penalty" imposed is a heavier one than that imposed by the trial judge. The Commission rejected the application as manifestly ill-founded.

Dyer -v- United Kingdom Application No 10475/83; (1985) 7 EHRR 469
1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers

In re a solicitor: H -v- United Kingdom 8083/77; [1980] ECC 493
1985 ECHR	Human Rights, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	European Convention on Human Rights 5

Colozza -v- Italy 9024/80; [1987] 7 EHRR 516; [1985] ECHR 1; (1985) 7 EHRR 516
12 Feb 1985 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence. Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: "the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person 'charged with a criminal offence' is entitled to take part in the hearing. Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph (3) guarantee to 'everyone charged with a criminal offence' the right 'to defend himself in person', 'to examine or have examined witnesses' and 'to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court', and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
	Link[s] omitted

Rubinat -v- Italy [1985] ECHR 2; 9317/81;; [1985] ECHR 2
12 Feb 1985 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (solution of the matter)
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Barthold -v- Germany 8734/79; (1985) 7 EHRR 383;;; [1986] ECHR 1; [1985] ECHR 3
25 Mar 1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 10; Just satisfaction reserved Any claim to derogation from a convention right must be 'convincingly established'.
	Link[s] omitted

X and Y -v- The Netherlands 8978/80; (1985) 8 EHRR 235; [1985] ECHR 4;; [1985] ECHR 4
26 Mar 1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	A parent complained to the police about a sexual assault on his daughter a mentally defective girl of 16. The prosecutor's office decided not to prosecute provided the accused did not repeat the offence. X appealed against the decision and requested the court to direct that proceedings be brought. The appeal was dismissed partly on the ground that although the girl was incapable of making the complaint herself, no one else was entitled to complain on her behalf. The claim was brought under Article 8, the right to private and family life. Held: There was a violation of Article 8. No prosecution could be instituted because of a "procedural obstacle which the Dutch legislature had apparently not foreseen", that obstacle being the Dutch law provision which meant that, although the applicant was unable herself to present her case in court due to her mental handicap no one else was entitled to complain on her behalf. The term 'private life' covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

Malone -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 8691/79; [1985] ECHR 5
26 Apr 1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	European Convention on Human Rights 8.1
	Link[s] omitted

Bonisch -v- Austria 8658/79; (1985) 13 EHRR 409;;; [1986] ECHR 5; [1985] ECHR 6
6 May 1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc ". . . in the present case an award of just satisfaction can only be based on the fact that the applicant did not have, before the Austrian courts, the benefit of the guarantees of Article 6(1)."
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Tejendrasingh -v- The United Kingdom 8231/78; [1985] ECHR 12
13 May 1985 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali -v- United Kingdom 9473/81; [1985] ECHR 7; 9214/80; 9474/81; (1985) 7 EHRR 471
28 May 1985 ECHR	Human Rights
	The claimants had each settled within the UK in accordance with Immigration rules, but now challenged refusal of leave to remain to their husbands who sought to join them.
	European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
	[ Bailii ]

Abdulaziz etc -v- The United Kingdom 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/80; (1985) 7 EHRR 471; [1985] ECHR 7
28 May 1985 ECHR	Human Rights, Immigration, Family	Casemap 1 Citers
	Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK. Held: The refusals of permission had not infringed the rights of the women and of their husbands to respect for their family life under article 8 but, in that the ground for the refusals had been a rule which had afforded a different and unjustified treatment of male, as opposed to female, spouses of persons lawfully settled in the UK, the women had suffered discrimination on the ground of sex in violation of their rights under article 14, taken together with article 8, of the Convention: "The duty imposed by article 8 cannot be considered as extending to a general obligation on the part of a contracting state to respect the choice by married couples of the country of their matrimonial residence and to accept the non-national spouses for settlement in that country." The court was astute to recognise the right under international law of a state to control immigration into its territory. This right has been weighed against the degree of interference with the enjoyment of family life caused by the immigration restriction often not because this served a legitimate aim under article 8(2) but because it acted as a free-standing restriction on the article 8 right. "The Court recalls that, although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective 'respect' for family life. However, especially as far as these obligations are concerned, the notion of 'respect' is not clear cut: having regard to the diversity of the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion's requirements will vary considerably from case to case. Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting Parties enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. In particular, in the area now under consideration, the extent of a State's obligation to admit in its territory relatives of settled immigrants will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved. Moreover, the Court cannot ignore that the present case is concerned not only with family life but also with immigration and that, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory." There can be a breach of article 14 even if there is no breach of a substantive Convention right. The refusal to let husbands join their wives here was justified by the right of the United Kingdom to control immigration. The difference in treatment between the husbands of wives settled here and the wives of husbands settled here had still to be justified under article 14. It was not. "Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to 'the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms' safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of article 14 does not necessarily presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter."
	European Convention on Human Rights 14
	Link[s] omitted

Ashingdane -v- The United Kingdom 8225/78; (1985) 7 EHRR 528; [1985] ECHR 8; 14/1983/70/106; [1985] ECHR 8
28 May 1985 ECHR	Human Rights, Health, Prisons	Casemap 1 Citers
	The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access 'by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals'. There was no breach where a patient was detained in the high security conditions of Broadmoor for 18 months after the Home Secretary had acknowledged that his condition no longer warranted it, and he could be transferred to a local psychiatric unit. Article 5(1)(e) is not concerned with suitable treatment or conditions.
	European Convention on Human Rights A6 A5(1)(e)
	Link[s] omitted

Vallon -v- Italy [1985] ECHR 9; 9621/81;; [1985] ECHR 9
3 Jun 1985 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Can -v- Austria 9300/81; [1985] ECHR 10;; [1985] ECHR 10
30 Sep 1985 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	Link[s] omitted

Johansen -v- Norway Unreported, 14 October 1985
14 Oct 1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) A pacifist objected to civilian substitute service on the ground that it tended to uphold respect for military service. Held: The complaint was inadmissible. Referring to article 4(3)(b): "The Convention does not prevent a state from taking measures to enforce performance of civilian service, or from imposing sanctions on those who refuse such service."
	European Convention on Human Rights 4(3)(b)

Benthem -v- The Netherlands 8848/80; [1985] ECHR 11; (1985) 8 EHRR 1
23 Oct 1985 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
	Link[s] omitted

W -v- United Kingdom 10787/84; [1985] ECHR 112
2 Dec 1985 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	[ Bailii ]

K -v- United Kingdom (1986) 50 DR 199
1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The existence of family ties depends upon "the real existence in practice of close family ties."

S -v- United Kingdom 11716/85; (1986) 47 DR 274
1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	A stable homosexual relationship between two men does not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life, but that such a relationship may be a matter affecting private life

Allgemiene Gold- und Silberscheideanstalt -v- United Kingdom 9118/80; (1986) 9 EHRR 1; [1986] ECHR 13;; [1986] ECHR 13
1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered arrangements for challenging the impounding of a motor vehicle. Held: The fact that a smuggler had recourse to the courts, even though the decision could only successfully be challenged if it was one which a publich authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could not have reached, provided a remedy sufficient to satisfy the applicant's human rights.
	European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol Art 1
	Link[s] omitted

Di Palma -v- United Kingdom (1986) 10 EHRR 149
1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The applicant's lease was forfeited on her non-payment of a service charge and possession was ordered. Her primary claim was made (unsuccessfully) under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. But she also complained that her eviction from her home constituted an unjustified interference with the right to respect for her home protected by article 8. The Commission held this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded because "any interference with [her] right to respect for her home which the forfeiture of her lease engendered was in conformity with Article 8(2) . . .". The interference with the applicant's article 8 rights brought about by the forfeiture of her lease on account of her failure to pay a service charge " … was in conformity with Art.8(2) as a measure which was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others."
	European Convention on Human Rights 1 8

K -v- United Kingdom (1986) 50 DR 199
1986	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The existence of a close personal relationship between adults and their children or as between adults and their own parents will of necessity be capable of being construed as family life.

Lindsay -v- United Kingdom (1986) 9 EHRR 513; (1986) 9 EHRR CD 555
1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Discrimination	Casemap 1 Citers
	The position of married couples is not comparable with the position of unmarried couples, so that differences in treatment between them do not amount to discrimination within the meaning of article 14 of the convention.

S -v- United Kingdom [1986] 47 D&R 274
1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Discrimination, Housing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant was not entitled in domestic law to succeed to a tenancy on the death of her partner. The aim of the legislation is question was to protect the family, a goal similar to the protection of the right to respect for family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The aim itself is clearly legitimate. The question remains, however, whether it was justified to protect families but not to give similar protection to other stable relationships. The Commission considers that the family (to which the relationship of heterosexual unmarried couples living together as husband and wife can be assimilated) merits special protection in society and it sees no reason why a High Contracting Power should not afford particular assistance to families. The Commission therefore accepted that the difference in treatment between the applicant and somebody in the same position whose partner had been of the opposite sex can be objectively and reasonably justified. And "The Commission notes that the applicant was occu?ying the house, of which her partner had been the tenant, without any legal title whatsoever. Contractual relations were established between the local authority and the deceased partner and that contractual agreement may or may not have permitted long-term visitors. The fact remains, however, that on the death of the partner, under the ordinary law, the applicant was no longer entitled to remain in the house, and the local authority was entitled to possession so that the house could no longer be regarded as 'home' for the applicant within the meaning of Article 8."
	European Convention on Human Rights 8

Z and E v Austria (1986) 49 DR 67
1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The state must act in a manner calculated to allow those concerned to lead a normal family life.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8

Andersson and Kullman -v- Sweden (1986) 46 DR 251
1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Comission found inadmissible an allegation that Sweden had infringed Article 8 by not providing financial assistance to a mother to allow her to stay at home to look after her children, rather than placing them in a crèche and going out to work. "The Convention does not as such guarantee the right to public assistance either in the form of financial support to maintain a certain standard of living or in the form of supplying day home care places. Nor does the right under Article 8 of the Convention to respect for family life extend so far as to impose on States a general obligation to provide for financial assistance to individuals in order to enable one of two parents to stay at home to take care of children".
	European Convention on Human Rights 8

Barthold -v- Germany (Article 50) [1985] ECHR 3; [1986] ECHR 1; 8734/79
31 Jan 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514; [1987] 2 WLR 606; [1986] UKHL 3; [1987] 1 All ER 940; [1987] Imm AR 250
19 Feb 1986 HL Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman	Administrative, Immigration, Human Rights, Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth's claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without investigation. Held: A claim to refugee status was not an exception to the ban on appeals under section 13(3). A person deemed under section 11(1) not to have entered the UK was not 'lawfully within' the UK within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, Status of Refugees 1951'. If the applicant (Musisi's) argument had been well-founded any asylum seeker arriving in the United Kingdom would have "an indefeasible right to remain here." Lord Bridge observed that that would be "very surprising" and he concluded rather that "the deeming provision enacted by section 11 (1) makes [the argument] quite untenable." There is a need for anxious scrutiny of any case where human life or liberty is at risk. While acknowledging the limitations of the Wednesbury principles, the courts will apply them extremely strictly in a case in which the life of the applicant is at risk. The court must be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the most rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines. "The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual's right to life and, when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant's life at risk, the basis of the decision calls for the most anxious scrutiny. Where the result of a flawed decision may imperil life or liberty a special responsibility lies on the court in the examination of the decision-making process."
	Immigration Act 1971 11(1) 13(3) 33(1)
	Link[s] omitted

James and Others -v- The United Kingdom 8793/79; (1986) 8 EHRR 123; [1986] ECHR 2; Series A no 98
21 Feb 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion. Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a mechanism for the compulsory transfer of the freehold interest in the house and the land to the tenant, with financial compensation to the landlord, cannot in itself be qualified in the circumstances as an inappropriate or disproportionate method for readjusting the law so as to meet the proper concern for the equitable distribution of ownership. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. "[T]he taking of property in the public interest without payment of compensation is treated as justifiable only in exceptional circumstances not relevant for present purposes. As far as Article 1 is concerned, the protection of the right to property it affords would be largely illusory and ineffective in the absence of any equivalent principle." and "Article 1 does not, however, guarantee a right to full compensation in all cases, since legitimate objectives of 'public interest', such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value." The court discussed a nation's discretion as to what was in the public interest: "Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is 'in the public interest'. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment both of the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures of deprivation of property and of the remedial action to be taken. Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. Furthermore, the notion of 'public interest' is necessarily extensive. In particular, as the Commission noted, the decision to enact laws expropriating property will commonly involve consideration of political, economic and social issues on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely. The Court, finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, will respect the legislature's judgment as to what is 'in the public interest' unless that judgment be manifestly without reasonable foundation."
	Leasehold Reform Act 1967 - European Convention on Human Rights P1-1
	Link[s] omitted

Hogben -v- United Kingdom 11653/85
3 Mar 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing	Casemap 1 Citers

Deumeland -v- Germany 9384/81; [1986] ECHR 3; (1986) 8 EHRR 448; [1986] ECHR 3
29 May 1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 in an industrial accident. Held. "The widow . . was not affected in her relations with the public authorities as such, acting in the exercise of discretionary powers, but in her personal capacity as a private individual. She was claiming a right flowing from specific rules laid down by the legislation in force. The right in question was a personal, economic and individual right, a factor that brought it close to the civil sphere."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Feldbrugge -v- The Netherlands (1986) 6 EHRR 425; 8562/79; [1986] ECHR 4; [1987] ECHR 18; [1987] ECHR 18; [1986] ECHR 4
29 May 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Administrative	Casemap
	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 applicant claimed a right "flowing from specific rules laid down by the legislation in force" and that the right in question was "a personal, economic and individual right", a factor which brought it close to the civil sphere. Taking account of the affinity of the statutory scheme with insurance under the ordinary law, the features of private law predominated and they conferred on her entitlement the character of a civil right within the meaning of the article. The minority were unable to persuade the majority to restrict the application of article 6, in the civil sphere, to rights and obligations in private law. "The judicialisation of dispute procedures, as guaranteed by article 6(1), is eminently appropriate in the realm of relations between individuals but not necessarily so in the administrative sphere, where organisational, social and economic considerations may legitimately warrant dispute procedures of a less judicial and formal kind." Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Bonisch -v- Austria (Article 50) [1985] ECHR 6; [1986] ECHR 5; 8658/79
2 Jun 1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Van Marle And Others -v- The Netherlands 8543/79;8674/79;8675/79;...; [1986] ECHR 6
26 Jun 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Van Marle And Others -v- The Netherlands [1986] ECHR 6; 8543/79; 8675/79; 8674/79; (1986) 8 EHRR 483
26 Jun 1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicants were accountants who had practised as such for some years when a new statute came into force which required then to register. Their applications were refused. Held: Article 1PI was engaged. In paragraphs 41 and 42 the Court said this: "The Court agrees with the Commission that the right relied upon by the applicants may be likened to the right of property embodied in Article 1: by dint of their own work, the applicants had built up a clientele: this had in many respects the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and, hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1. This provision was accordingly applicable in the present case. The refusal to register the applicants as certified accountants radically affected the conditions of their professional activities and the scope of those activities was reduced. Their income fell, as did the value of their clientele and, more generally, their business. Consequently, there was interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions."
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Lithgow And Others -v- The United Kingdom 9006/80; 9262/81; [1986] 8 EHRR 329; [1986] ECHR 8
8 Jul 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	Convention jurisprudence permits a proportionate restriction on access to a court, provided the essential rights that are in contest from a Convention point of view are not thereby rendered nugatory. The court considered the economic policies which underlay the nationalisation of shipbuilding companies. The assessment of compensation in a nationalisation case was particularly complex and called for different considerations from those which applied to the compulsory acquisition of land where legislation applicable across the board was required.
	Link[s] omitted

Lithgow And Others -v- The United Kingdom 9262/81; [1986] ECHR 8; 9006/80; 9263/81; (1986) 8 EHRR 329
8 Jul 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	The applicants complained that on the nationalisation of their interests under the 1977 Act, the compensation awarded had been inadequate and did not reflect their true value.
	European Convention on Human Rights - Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977
	Link[s] omitted

Lingens -v- Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407; 9815/82; [1986] ECHR 7;; [1986] ECHR 7
8 Jul 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Defamation, Media	Casemap 1 Citers
	Freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society'. "The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance. No doubt article 10(2) enables the reputation of others--that is to say, of all individuals--to be protected, and this protection extends to politicians too, even when they are not acting in their private capacity; but in such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues."
	European Convention on Human Rights 10
	Link[s] omitted

Lithgow And Others -v- The United Kingdom 9006/80; 9263/81; [1986] ECHR 8; (1986) 8 EHRR 329; 9262/81
8 Jul 1986 ECHR R Ryssdal, President	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	ECHR Judgment (Merits) - No violation of P1-1.
	Link[s] omitted

Glasenapp -v- Germany 9228/80; [1986] ECHR 9;; [1986] ECHR 9
28 Aug 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 10
	Link[s] omitted

Kosiek -v- Germany 9704/82; [1986] ECHR 10;; [1986] ECHR 10
28 Aug 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); No violation of Art. 10
	Link[s] omitted

P -v- United Kingdom (1987) 54 DR 211
13 Oct 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Immigration	Casemap 1 Citers
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Rees -v- The United Kingdom 9532/81; (1986) 9 EHRR 56; [1986] ECHR 11;; [1986] ECHR 11
17 Oct 1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant had been born and registered as a female, but later came to receive treatment and to live as a male. He complained that the respondent had failed to amend his birth certificate. The case concerned the rights of trans-sexuals. Application of the Corbett criteria, and consequent non-recognition of change of gender by post-operative transsexual persons, did not constitute a violation of article 8 (right to respect for private life) or article 12 (right to marry). The fair balance to be struck between the general interest of the community and the interests of the individual, will inevitably vary, and such an obligation must not be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. "The term 'transsexual' is usually applied to those who, whilst belonging physically to one sex, feel convinced that they belong to the other; they often seek to achieve a more integrated, unambiguous identity by undergoing medical treatment and surgical operations to adapt their physical characteristics to their psychological nature. Transsexuals who have been operated upon thus form a fairly well-defined and identifiable group."
	European Convention on Human Rights 8 12
	Link[s] omitted

Sanchez-Reisse -v- Switzerland 9862/82; [1986] ECHR 12
21 Oct 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Sanchez-Reisse -v- Switzerland [1986] ECHR 12; 9862/82; (1986) 9 EHRR 71
21 Oct 1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	That a detainee may be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation can be a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty.
	Link[s] omitted

Agosi -v- The United Kingdom 9118/80; (1986) 9 EHRR 1; Series A no. 108
24 Oct 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Customs and Excise	Casemap 1 Citers
	Krugerrand coins were seized by the Commissioners and the claimant was unsuccessful in obtaining their restoration under what is now section 152(b) of the 1979 Act. It was argued that the request for restoration of the coins amounted to a determination of a criminal charge. Having noted that criminal charges under domestic law had been brought against the smugglers but not against AGOSI, the Court concluded the fact that measures consequential upon an act for which third parties were prosecuted affected in an adverse manner the property rights of AGOSI did not of itself lead to the conclusion that, during the course of the procedures complained of, any 'criminal charge' for the purposes of Article 6, could be considered as having been brought against the applicant company. The condemnation and restoration proceedings are sufficient to comply with Convention rights.
	Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152(b) - European Convetion on Human Rights 6

Unterpertinger -v- Austria 9120/80; [1986] ECHR 15; (1986) 13 EHRR 175;; [1986] ECHR 15
24 Nov 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Evidence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was convicted of causing actual bodily harm, mainly on the basis of statements which his wife and daughter had given to the police. His wife and daughter took advantage of their right not to give evidence at his trial and so could not be cross-examined on their statements. Held: Where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6. The reading out of statements of witnesses without the witness being heard in a public hearing could not be regarded as being inconsistent with Article 6(1) and 3(d) of the Convention but it went on to emphasise that the use made of this in evidence had nevertheless to comply with the rights of the defence which it was the object and purpose of Article 6 to protect. This meant that, in principle, the accused had to be given a proper and adequate opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when the witness made the statement or at a later stage.
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Gillow -v- The United Kingdom 9063/80; (1986) 11 EHRR 335; 13/1984/85/132; [1986] ECHR 14; [1987] ECHR 23; [1987] ECHR 23; [1986] ECHR 14
24 Nov 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Housing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The housing authority in Guernsey refused to allow the applicants to occupy the house they owned there. Held: The house in question was the applicants' home because, although they had been absent from Guernsey for many years, they had not established any other home elsewhere in the United Kingdom and had retained "sufficient continuing links" with the house for it to be considered their home for the purposes of article 8. "It was . . established that the island of Guernsey should be regarded as a 'territory for the international relations of which the U.K. is responsible' for the purposes of treaty provisions in the terms of Article 4 of this Protocol; and this practice has been followed with regard to treaties concluded within the framework of the Council of Europe including the Convention (Article [56]). It thus clearly results from the text of Article 4 that an express declaration is required for the application of the Protocol to the island of Guernsey". The United Kingdom had not made a declaration extending the Protocol to Guernsey and the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

Di Palma -v- United Kingdom 11949/86; [1986] ECHR 19; (1986) 10 EHRR 149
1 Dec 1986 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Bozano -v- France [1987] ECHR 31; [1986] ECHR 16; 9990/82;; [1987] ECHR 31; [1986] ECHR 16
18 Dec 1986 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - claim partially rejected; Just satisfaction partially reserved
	Link[s] omitted

Johnston and Others -v- Ireland [1986] ECHR 17; 9697/82; [1986] 9 EHRR 203;; [1986] ECHR 17
18 Dec 1986 ECHR	Human Rights, Discrimination	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The applicants were an unmarried couple who could not marry, and so legitimate their daughter, the third applicant, because the Irish Constitution did not permit divorce. They relied on article 14 in conjunction with article 8, arguing that they had been discriminated against on grounds of their limited financial means, since (had they been better off) they could have obtained a divorce by the expedient of a spell of residence outside the Republic. Held: The complaint was rejected in short measure: "Article 14 safeguards persons who are 'placed in analogous situations' against discriminatory differences of treatment in the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention. The court notes that under the general Irish rules of private international law foreign divorces will be recognised in Ireland only if they have been obtained by persons domiciled abroad. It does not find it to have been established that these rules are departed from in practice. In its view, the situations of such persons and of the first and second applicants cannot be regarded as analogous."
	European Convention on Human Rights 814
	Link[s] omitted

B -v- United Kingdom (1987) 10 EHRR 87
1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap
	A local authority considering taking action in respect of a child must consider also the views and opinions of the parents.

W -v- United Kingdom (1987) 10 EHRR 29
1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Children, Local Government	Casemap 1 Citers
	A local authority must, in reaching decisions on children in care, take account of the views and interests of the natural parents, which called for a degree of protection. In the context of care proceedings, public authorities may not be required to follow inflexible procedures.

G -v- Germany 13079/87
1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The applicants had conducted a sit-in, to protest against nuclear arms, and which obstructed a highway, which gave access to a US army barracks in Germany, for twelve minutes every hour. Held: Applying the authorities, the Commission said that it considered that 'the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is secured to everyone who organises or participates in a peaceful demonstration.' However, it went on to say that: "[T]he applicant's conviction for having participated in a sit-in can reasonably be considered as necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and crime. In this respect, the Commission considers especially that the applicant had not been punished for his participation in the demonstration . . as such, but for particular behaviour in the course of the demonstration, namely the blocking of a public road, thereby causing more obstruction than would normally arise from the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly. The applicant and the other demonstrators had thereby intended to attract broader public attention to their political opinions concerning nuclear armament. However, balancing the public interest in the prevention of disorder and the interest of the applicant and the other demonstrators in choosing the particular form of a sit-in, the applicant's conviction for the criminal offence of unlawful coercion does not appear disproportionate to the aims pursued."

M -v- United Kingdom (1987) 52 DR 269
1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The protection of those responsible for the care of mental patients from being harassed by litigation is a legitimate objective.

Vaughan -v- United Kingdom 12639/87
1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Benefits	Casemap 1 Citers
	Article 8 does not impose any positive obligation to provide financial assistance to support a person's family life.

Council Of Civil Service Unions -v- The United Kingdom 11603/85; [1987] ECHR 34
20 Jan 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Board of Visitors of the Maze Prison, ex Parte Hone [1987] UKHL 9
21 Jan 1987 HL	Prisons, Human Rights, Northern Ireland
	The House was asked whether a prisoner appearing before a board of visitors on a disciplinary charge is entitled as of right to legal representation at the hearing.
	Link[s] omitted

Monnell And Morris -v- The United Kingdom 9562/81;9818/82; [1987] ECHR 2
2 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Mathieu MOHIN AND CLERFAYT v. BELGIUM - 9267/81; [1987] ECHR 1
2 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt -v- Belgium 9267/81; (1987) 10 EHRR 1; [1987] ECHR 1
2 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Elections	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court described and approved the way in which an "institutional" right to vote had developed into "subjective rights of participation – the 'right to vote' and the 'right to stand for election'." It described the ambit of Article 3: "In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3. They have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. In particular, such conditions must not thwart 'the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature'." There is room for "implied limitations" on the rights enshrined in Article 3, and Contracting States must be given a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere
	European Convention on Human Rights A-3
	Link[s] omitted

Monnell And Morris -v- The United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 205; 9562/81; 9818/82; [1987] ECHR 2
2 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; No violation of Art. 14+5; No violation of Art. 14+6 The applicants had unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed their applications at a hearing at which, in accordance with the normal procedure, they were neither present nor represented. It ordered that part of the time that they had spent in custody after conviction should not count towards service of the sentences that had been imposed on them at first instance. Held: The court rejected the applicants' submission that there had been a breach of article 6 because they were not given the opportunity to be present in person and to submit oral arguments as to why they should not be subjected to an extension of their deprivation of liberty. The interests of justice and fairness could be met by the applicants being able to present relevant considerations through making written submissions.
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Weeks -v- The United Kingdom Times, 05 March 1987; 9787/82; [1987] ECHR 3; (1988) 10 EHRR 293; [2008] ECHR 18; [1987] ECHR 3
2 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Prisons	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 applicant that the clearly stated purpose for which [the] sentence was imposed, taken together with the particular facts pertaining to the offence for which he was convicted, places the sentence in a special category." In substance, Mr Weeks was being put at the disposal of the state because he needed continued supervision in custody for an unforeseeable length of time and, as a corollary, periodic reassessment in order to ascertain the most appropriate way of dealing with him, and added: "The grounds expressly relied on by the sentencing courts for ordering this form of deprivation of liberty against Mr Weeks are by their very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time, whereas the measure will remain in force for the whole of his life. In this, his sentence differs from a life sentence imposed on a person because of the gravity of the offence." The Parole Board for England and Wales has the necessary independence to constitute a "court" for the purposes of Article 5(4). In considering whether the prisoner should be released, the Board will consider whether the prisoner remains a danger to the public. The freedom enjoyed by a discretionary life sentence prisoner on licence is "more circumscribed in law and more precarious than the freedom enjoyed by the ordinary citizen" but is, nonetheless, a state of liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the Convention.
	European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
	Link[s] omitted

R -v- Switzerland 10881/84
4 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Arbitration	Casemap
	(Commission) "whereas the inclusion of an arbitration clause in an agreement between individuals amounts legally to partial renunciation of the exercise of those rights defined by Article 6 para. 1; whereas nothing in the text of that Article nor of any other article of the Convention explicitly prohibits such renunciation; whereas the Commission is not entitled to assume that the Contracting States, in accepting the obligations arising under Article 6 para. 1, intended to prevent persons coming under their jurisdiction from entrusting the settlement of certain matters to arbitrators; whereas the disputed arbitration clause might have been regarded as contrary to the Convention if X. had signed it under constraint, which was not the case."

Webster -v- United Kingdom 12118/86
4 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Prisons	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) An American citizen was detained in England, and eventually deported to France. He complained that there was discrimination against foreign nationals, who did not challenge orders for deportation but sought parole. That was disputed by the Secretary of State, and the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated, but the Commission did consider the jurisdictional issue. It noted that having been sentenced to serve 5 years imprisonment the applicant could have been expected to serve that sentence, but the Commission went on to say that: "If a prisoner pre-release scheme were operated in a discriminatory manner, an issue could arise under Article 5 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14."
	European Convention on Human Rights 5 14

Leander -v- Sweden [1987] 9 EHRR 433; 9248/81; [1987] ECHR 4
26 Mar 1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Police, Information	Casemap 1 Citers
	Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander complained that he should have been provided with the information in question, and should have been given the chance to refute it. He submitted that Article 10 conferred a right of access to Government records and a positive obligation upon the State to disclose the contents of its file to him upon request. Held: His submission failed. Article 10 did not "in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on an individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position". Proceedings before an Appeals Board and the possibility of interim injunction proceedings taken together provided the applicants with an effective remedy. Both the storage of private information in a secret police register and its release, coupled with a refusal to allow an opportunity to refute it, were an interference with the right to respect for private life. "The Court observes that the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him. Article 10 does not, in circumstances such as those of the present case, confer on the individual a right of access to a register containing information on his personal position, nor does it embody an obligation on the Government to impart such information to the individual. There has thus been no interference with Mr. Leander's freedom to receive information, as protected by Article 10."
	European Convention on Human Rights 13
	Link[s] omitted

Poiss -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 25; [1987] ECHR 8; 9816/82; [1987] ECHR 8; [1987] ECHR 25
23 Apr 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved
	Link[s] omitted

Lechner And Hess -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 7; 9316/81; (1987) 9 EHRR 490; [1987] ECHR 7
23 Apr 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Erkner And Hofauer -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 5; [1987] ECHR 24; 9616/81; [1987] ECHR 5; [1987] ECHR 24
23 Apr 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved
	Link[s] omitted

Ettl And Others -v- Austria [1987] ECHR 6; 9273/81; [1987] ECHR 6
23 Apr 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Dhoest -v- Belgium 10448/83
14 May 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Commission considered the conditions of detention in solitary confinement in a mental institution. Held: In assessing whether a measure may fall within the ambit of article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned.

Baggetta -v- Italy [1987] ECHR 9; 10256/83; [1987] ECHR 9
25 Jun 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Milasi -v- Italy [1987] ECHR 11; 10527/83; [1987] ECHR 11
25 Jun 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses - claim rejected
	Link[s] omitted

Capuano -v- Italy [1987] ECHR 10; 9381/81; [1987] ECHR 10
25 Jun 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

W -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 12; [1987] ECHR 17; 9749/82
8 Jul 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved
	Link[s] omitted

R -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 11; [1987] ECHR 16; 10496/83; [1988] ECHR 11; [1987] ECHR 16
8 Jul 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved
	Link[s] omitted

Baraona -v- Portugal [1987] ECHR 13; 10092/82; [1987] ECHR 13
8 Jul 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

B -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 8; [1987] ECHR 12; 9840/82;; [1987] ECHR 12
8 Jul 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved
	Link[s] omitted

O -v- The United Kingdom [1988] ECHR 10; [1987] ECHR 15; 9276/81; 9276/81;; [1988] ECHR 10; [1987] ECHR 15
8 Jul 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Howard -v- United Kingdom 10825/84
16 Jul 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Acquisition of Land Act 1981 23

Lutz -v- Germany 9912/82; [1987] ECHR 20; (1987) 10 EHRR 182; [1987] ECHR 20
25 Aug 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Only criminal charges attract the additional protections under article 6(2) and 6(3). Insofar as these provisions apply to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" it is well established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that this concept is co-extensive with the concept of the determination of any criminal charge. As to whether a successful defendant was entitled to an award of costs in his favour: The Court points out, first of all, like the Commission and the Government, that neither Article 6 (2) nor any other provision of the Convention gives a person 'charged with a criminal offence' a right to reimbursement of his costs where proceedings taken against him are discontinued. The refusal to reimburse Mr Lutz for his necessary costs and expenses accordingly does not in itself offend the presumption of innocence. Counsel for the applicant moreover stated, in reply to a question from the President, that his client was not challenging that refusal but solely the reasons given for it. Nevertheless, a decision refusing reimbursement of an accused's necessary costs and expenses following termination of proceedings may raise an issue under Article 6 (2) if supporting reasoning which cannot be dissociated from the operative provisions amounts in substance to a determination of the accused's guilt without his having previously been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of the defence."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Englert -v- Germany 10282/83; [1987] ECHR 19; [1987] ECHR 19
25 Aug 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-2
	Link[s] omitted

Nolkenbockhoff -v- Germany 10300/83; [1987] ECHR 21; [1987] ECHR 21
25 Aug 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (victim); No violation of Art. 6-2
	Link[s] omitted

Erkner And Hofauer -v- Austria (Article 50) 9616/81
29 Sep 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)

Poiss -v- Austria (Article 50) 9816/82
29 Sep 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)

MC -v- The United Kingdom [1987] ECHR 33; 11882/85
7 Oct 1987 ECHR Norgaard P	Human Rights, Employment, Crime
	(Commission - Admissibility)
	Link[s] omitted

Boden -v- Sweden (1987) 10 EHRR 367; 10930/84; [1987] ECHR 26
27 Oct 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	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
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Pudas -v- Sweden 10426/83; [1987] ECHR 27; (1987) 10 EHRR 380
27 Oct 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	European Convention on Human Rights
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Inze -v- Austria (1987) 10 EHRR 394; 8695/79; [1987] ECHR 28; [1987] ECHR 28
28 Oct 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Art 14 was engaged in respect of discrimination over future interests despite Marckx. The case turned on what singular provisions of Austrian inheritance law, whereby the illegitimate claimant had some, but incomplete, rights on his mother’s intestacy. The claim was not exclusively in respect of future rights, which the Court relied on in distinguishing Marckx.
	European Convention on Human Rights 14
	Link[s] omitted

Ben Yaacoub -v- Belgium 9976/82; [1987] ECHR 29; [1987] ECHR 29
27 Nov 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	Link[s] omitted

H -v- Belgium (1987) 10 EHRR 339; 8950/80; (1987) 10 EHRR 339; [1987] ECHR 30; [1987] ECHR 30
30 Nov 1987 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings It is for domestic law to determine the extent and content of a person's civil rights.
	Link[s] omitted

Bozano -v- France (Article 50) 9990/82
2 Dec 1987 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Regina -v- Home Secretary, ex parte Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958; [1987] UKHL 1; [1988] 1 All ER 193; [1988] Imm AR 147; [1988] 2 WLR 92; [2002] INLR 310
16 Dec 1987 HL Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman and Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff	Immigration, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The House of Lords were concerned with the correct test to be applied in determining whether asylum seekers are entitled to the status of refugee. That in turn gave rise to an issue, turning upon the proper interpretation of Article 1.A(2) of the Convention. Held: When deciding whether an asylum applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded, it was sufficient for a decision-maker to be satisfied that there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that the applicant would be persecuted for a Convention reason if returned to his own country. In asylum cases and cases involving Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR, the risk to the claimant only has to be established to the extent of showing a reasonable likelihood of persecution or treatment amounting to a breach of one of those Articles. The task of the court is to ascertain the real reason for the treatment, the reason which operates on the mind of the alleged discriminator. This may not be the reason given, and may not be the only reason, but the test is an objective one. Lord Templeman: "Applications for leave to enter and remain do not in general raise justiciable issues. Decisions under the Act are administrative and discretionary rather than judicial and imperative. Such decisions may involve the Immigration Authorities in pursuing enquiries abroad, in consulting official and unofficial organisations and in making value judgements. The only power of the Court is to quash or grant other effective relief in judicial review proceedings in respect of any decision under the Act of 1971 which is made in breach of the provisions of the Act or the Rules thereunder or which is the result of procedural impropriety or unfairness or is otherwise unlawful ...... Where the result of a flawed decision may imperil life or liberty a special responsibility lies on the Court in the examination of the decision-making process." Lord Keith: "The United Kingdom having acceded to the Convention and Protocol, their provisions have for all practical purposes been incorporated into United Kingdom law." and "In my opinion the requirement that an applicant's fear of persecution should be well-founded means that there has to be demonstrated a reasonable degree of likelihood that he will be persecuted for a Convention reason if returned to his own country." The Home Secretary is entitled to obtain information from many sources including diplomatic, official and other channels. Lord Goff: "But once it is accepted that the Secretary of State is entitled to look not only at the facts as seen by the applicant, but also at the objective facts as ascertained by himself in relation to the country in question, he is, on the High Commissioner's approach, not asking himself whether the actual fear of the applicant is plausible and reasonable; he is asking himself the purely hypothetical question whether, if the applicant knew the true facts, and was still (in the light of those facts) afraid, his fear could be described as plausible and reasonable. On this approach, the Secretary of State is required to ask himself a most unreal question. His appreciation is in any event likely to be coloured by his own assessment of the objective facts as ascertained by him; and it appears to me that the High Commissioner's approach is not supported, as a matter of construction, by the words of the Convention, even having regard to its objects and to the travaux préparatoires. In truth, once it is recognised that the expression "well-founded" entitles the Secretary of State to have regard to facts unknown to the applicant for refugee status, that expression cannot be read simply as "qualifying" the subjective fear of the applicant - it must, in my opinion require that an inquiry should be made whether the subjective fear of the applicant is objectively justified. For the true object of the Convention is not just to assuage fear, however reasonably and plausibly entertained, but to provide a safe haven for those unfortunate people whose fear of persecution is in reality well-founded."
	Geneva Convention (1951) and Protocol (1967) relating to the Status of Refugees - European Convention on Human Rights 2 3
	Link[s] omitted

F -v- Switzerland (1987) 10 EHRR 411; 11329/85; [1987] ECHR 32; [1987] ECHR 32
18 Dec 1987 ECHR	Human Rights, Family	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 12; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings A Swiss law placed limitations on the remarriage of someone who had been the guilty party in previous divorce proceedings. Held: The Court explained that the closing words in Article 12 ("according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right" ) confer only a limited power on states. In all the Council of Europe's member States, these "limitations" appear as conditions and are embodied in procedural or substantive rules. The former relate mainly to publicity and the solemnisation of marriage, while the latter relate primarily to capacity, consent and certain impediments". The court recognized that the national law sought to promote stability in marriage, but "the disputed measure, which affected the very essence of the right to marry, was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." National laws: "must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. In all the Council of Europe's member States, these "limitations" appear as conditions and are embodied in procedural or substantive rules. The former relate mainly to publicity and the solemnisation of marriage, while the latter relate primarily to capacity, consent and certain impediments."
	European Convention on Human Rights 12
	Link[s] omitted

Chundawadra -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1988] IAR 161
1988 CA Slade LJ	Immigration, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights did not create a justiciable legitimate expectation that the Convention's provisions would be complied with. Slade LJ said there was no evidence of "any relevant express promise or regular practice on the part of the Secretary of State. In default of such promise or practice, however, I do not see how the doctrine of legitimate expectation can avail the appellant."

E -v- United Kingdom [1988] 10 ECHRR 141
1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers

Regina -v- Dyment (1988) 45 CCC (3d) 244
1988 CCC La Forest J	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court referred to "informational privacy" - "This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit."

Weatherall -v- Canada 1988 l FC 369
1988 Strayer J	Commonwealth, Prisons, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Canada) One of the limitations on a prisoner's rights arising out of his conviction and imprisonment was his subjection to searches necessary for the security and good order of the prison: "... Nevertheless, such searches should be subject to some control to ensure that they are truly used for the purposes which justify this infringement of normal human rights. I have concluded that while there is a place for routine skin searches without the need for prior authorization specific to that search, and without the need for showing reasonable and probable cause to suspect the particular inmate searched to be concealing some forbidden item, the circumstances in which such routine searches are authorized should be laid down by Regulation. Such rules will have to be, in themselves, reasonable in identifying situations in which, by reason of probability of, or opportunity for, concealment of contraband, or the need for deterrence of smuggling, a routine strip search is justified in the public interest. As for non-routine searches, I can see no reason why there should not also be some legal rules providing for such situations. There might be, for example, a rule providing that, in case of an immediate and specific security or enforcement problem, a general skin search could be conducted of all or a certain group of inmates. This could arise, for example, where an inmate has been stabbed in a cell block and it is thought necessary to skin search all inmates there for the weapon. But where, apart from such routine or general skin searches, individual inmates are to be skin searched, there should be a rule requiring those conducting the search to have reasonable and probable cause for believing that the inmate in question is concealing some prohibited matter on his person. Where time or circumstances do not permit those conducting non-routine searches to obtain authority from a superior officer, there should be some meaningful requirement of review by such superior officer after the event."

In Re KD (A Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806
1988 HL Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Templeman	Children, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The local authority sought to terminate parental contact with a child taken into care under a wardship. Held. The court had to consider the human rights of the parent as against the welfare interest of the child. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: "My Lords I do not, for my part, discern any conflict between the propositions laid down by your Lordships' House in J. v C. and the pronouncements of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the natural parent's right of access to her child. Such conflict as exists, is, I think, semantic only and lies only in differing ways of giving expression to the single concept that the natural bond in the relationship between parent and child gives rise to universally recognised norms which ought not to be gratuitously interfered with and which, if interfered with at all, ought to be so only if the welfare of the child dictates it. The word "right" is used in a variety of different senses, both popular and jurisprudential . . Parenthood, in most civilised societies, is generally conceived of as conferring upon parents the exclusive privilege of ordering, within the family, the upbringing of children of tender age, with all that that entails. That is a privilege which, interfered with without authority, would be protected by the courts, but it is a privilege circumscribed by many limitations imposed both by the general law and, where circumstances demand, by the courts or by the authorities upon whom the legislature has imposed the duty of supervising the welfare of children and young persons. When the jurisdiction of the court is invoked for the protection of the child the parental privileges do not terminate. They do, however, become immediately subservient to the paramount consideration which the court has always in mind, that is to say, the welfare of the child. That is the basis of the decision of your Lordships' House in J. v C. [1970] A.C. 668 and I see nothing in R. v United Kingdom (Case 6/1986/104/152) which contradicts or casts any doubt upon that decision or which calls now for any re-appraisal of it by your Lordships. In particular the description of those familial rights and privileges enjoyed by parents in relation to their children as "fundamental" or "basic" does nothing, in my judgment, to clarify either the nature or the extent of the concept which it is sought to describe." Lord Templeman said: "Public authorities cannot improve on nature."

Bouamar -v- Belgium (1988) 11 EHRR 1; 9106/80; [1988] ECHR 1; [1988] ECHR 16; (1987) 11 EHRR 1;; [1988] ECHR 1; [1988] ECHR 16
29 Feb 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Children, Education	1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved; Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) A person detained as a juvenile in need of educational supervision should not be detained in a prison where no education is available.
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Karni -v- Sweden 11540/88; (1988) 55 DR 157
8 Mar 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Health Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The applicant was a doctor who, on his return to Sweden, was entered on the list of those affiliated to the Social Security System which meant he could carry on a private medical practice and receive payment for treatment provided to those who might otherwise not be able to pay. New rules meant that he was removed from the list and so the investments he had made in equipment were lost and his practice closed down. The Commission decided that the loss of his affiliation did not amount to deprivation of a possession since he would, at least in theory, continue to practise with patients who would pay. But the Commission considered that 'the vested interests in the applicant's medical practice may be regarded as "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1PI'. It said: "The question of affiliation to the Social Insurance system was a decisive element for the running of the practice."
	Link[s] omitted

Olsson -v- Sweden (No 1) Times, 28 March 1988; [1988] Series A No 130; 10465/83; (1988) 11 EHRR 259
24 Mar 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The requirements identified as flowing from the phrase "in accordance with the law" include this: "A norm cannot be regarded as a 'law' unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail; however, experience shows that absolute precision is unattainable and the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague." and "[The] notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."

Boyle and Rice -v- The United Kingdom Times, 13 May 1988; 9659/82; 9658/82; [1988] ECHR 3
27 Apr 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Prisons	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings The first applicant had been convicted and sentenced for murder and subsequent acts of violence within prison. Whilst in prison he discovered an aptitude for writing and sculpture. Whilst on a special regime he was given certain privileges, but was then transferred to a standard regime pending his release on licence, losing those privileges. He complained that a letter had been stopped on the ground that it might be published. The second applicant also complained aboiut the reading of private correspondence by the prisons. Held: The stopping of the letter did infringe the first applicant's human rights. A claim could be considered by the court even though it had been dismissed by the Commission. The remedies available to him for these breaches were adequate, and the facts of the case disclosed no violation of Article 13 .
	European Convention on Human Rights 3
	Link[s] omitted

Boyle And Rice -v- The United Kingdom 9658/82; [1988] ECHR 3; 9659/82
27 Apr 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Boyle And Rice -v- The United Kingdom 9659/82; 9658/82
27 Apr 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings.
	Link[s] omitted

Belilos -v- Switzerland 10328/83; (1988) 10 EHRR 466; [1988] ECHR 4;; [1988] ECHR 4
29 Apr 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (validity of declaration); Violation of Art. 6-1; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings; Lack of jurisdiction (cancellation and refund of fine); Lack of jurisdiction (legislative amendment) The applicant had been convicted for having participated in an unauthorised demonstration. The procedure before the Police Board and the higher courts, which heard her appeal did not conform with the requirements of Article 6(1) because the Police Board's single member was a lawyer from the police headquarters. That appointed member could not be dismissed during his term of office and his personal impartiality had not been called into question, but there were no safeguards given to ensure that the appointed member acted independently and impartially, other than his limited security of tenure and that he took a different oath from that taken by policemen. The requirement of independence did not appear in the text of the oath. Held: "the ordinary citizen will tend to see [the member of the Police Board] as a member of the police force subordinate to his superiors and loyal to his colleagues. A stipulation of this kind may undermine the confidence which must be inspired by the courts in a democratic society"
	Link[s] omitted

Muller And Others -v- Switzerland [1991] 13 EHRR 212; 10737/84; [1988] ECHR 5; (1988) 13 EHRR 212; [1988] ECHR 5; [1988] ECHR 5
24 May 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Human Rights, Crime, Media	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Court considered a complaint that Article 10 had been infringed by the applicant's conviction of an offence of publishing obscene items, consisting of paintings which were said "mostly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of ordinary sensitivity". Held: There was no breach of Article 10 "Artists and those who promote their work are certainly not immune from the possibility of limitations as provided for in paragraph (2) of Article 10. Whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes, in accordance with the express terms of that paragraph, "duties and responsibilities"; their scope will depend on his situation and the means he uses. In considering whether the penalty was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court cannot overlook this aspect of the matter." Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and "it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population".
	European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Eurpean Convention on Human Rights 810
	Link[s] omitted

Muller And Others -v- Switzerland [1991] 13 EHRR 212; 10737/84; [1988] ECHR 5; (1988) 13 EHRR 212; [1988] ECHR 5; [1988] ECHR 5
24 May 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Human Rights, Crime, Media	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Court considered a complaint that Article 10 had been infringed by the applicant's conviction of an offence of publishing obscene items, consisting of paintings which were said "mostly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of ordinary sensitivity". Held: There was no breach of Article 10 "Artists and those who promote their work are certainly not immune from the possibility of limitations as provided for in paragraph (2) of Article 10. Whoever exercises his freedom of expression undertakes, in accordance with the express terms of that paragraph, "duties and responsibilities"; their scope will depend on his situation and the means he uses. In considering whether the penalty was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court cannot overlook this aspect of the matter." Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and "it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population".
	European Convention on Human Rights 10 - Eurpean Convention on Human Rights 810
	Link[s] omitted

Pauwels -v- Belgium [1988] ECHR 7; 10208/82;; [1988] ECHR 7
26 May 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Ekbatani -v- Sweden 10465/83; [1988] 13 EHRR 504; [1988] ECHR 2; 10563/83; [1988] ECHR 6;;; [1988] ECHR 2; [1988] ECHR 6
26 May 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was convicted of threatening a civil servant. His appeal was dealt with without a hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed the decision. Held: Though the Court confirmed that if there had been a public hearing at first instance, and the absence of a public hearing before a second or third instance tribunal might be justified, and since the Court of Appeal had to make what a "full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence" its re-examination of the conviction ought to have comprised a full rehearing. "…..it flows from the notion of a fair trial that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle, be entitled to be present at the trial hearing".
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

B -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 9840/82
9 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

H -v- The United Kingdom [1987] 10 EHRR 95; 9580/81; [1988] ECHR 9; [1987] ECHR 14;; [1988] ECHR 9; [1987] ECHR 14
9 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 8; Just satisfaction reserved Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Article 8 was infringed by delay in the conduct of access and adoption proceedings because the proceedings "lay within an area in which procedural delay may lead to a de facto determination of the matter in issue", which was precisely what had occurred.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

W -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 9749/82;; [1988] ECHR 12; [1987] ECHR 17
9 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
	Link[s] omitted

R -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 10496/83
9 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

SchÖNenberger And Durmaz [1988] ECHR 13; 11368/85;; [1988] ECHR 13
20 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Plattform Arzte Fur Das Leben -v- Austria 10126/82; [1988] ECHR 15; (1988) 13 EHRR 204; [1988] ECHR 15
21 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	It is the duty of member states to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Berrehab -v- The Netherlands [1988] ECHR 14; 10730/84;; [1988] ECHR 14
21 Jun 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Family	Casemap 1 Citers
	Family life arises ipso jure as between father and child where the child was conceived in wedlock
	Link[s] omitted

Schenk -v- Switzerland 10862/84; [1988] ECHR 17; (1988) 13 EHRR 242;
12 Jul 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man. Held: The ECHR does not address issues about the admissibility of evidence in the abstract or to deal with them as issues of principle. Article 6 simply guarantees the right to a fair trial and that admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for regulation under national law. The Court added: "The Court therefore cannot exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence of the present kind may be admissible. It has only to ascertain whether Mr Schenk's trial as a whole was fair." The Court noted that the rights of the defence were respected: the applicant had the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the recording and of opposing its use. The defence had been able to secure an investigation of the background of the relevant witness and could have examined him in court. In addition, the Court attached weight to the fact that the recording was not the only evidence on which the applicant's conviction was based and that the domestic court had expressly said that it had relied on evidence, other than the recording, which pointed to the applicant's guilt. Rules about the admissibility of evidence are for the contracting states: "While article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law. The court therefore cannot exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence of the present kind may be admissible. It has only to ascertain whether Mr Schenk's trial as a whole was fair."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 6.2
	Link[s] omitted

Weeks -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) (1988) 10 EHRR 293; [1988] ECHR 18; 9787/82
5 Oct 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
	Link[s] omitted

Salabiaku -v- France (1988) 13 EHRR 379; 10519/83; [1988] ECHR 19;; [1988] ECHR 19
7 Oct 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Customs and Excise, Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	A Zaïrese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, went through the green customs channel and was detained. The trunk contained cannabis. He was charged with two offences, a criminal offence of illegally importing narcotics and a "customs offence" of smuggling prohibited goods. At trial and on appeal he was acquitted of the former but convicted of smuggling, an offence relating to any act of smuggling or undeclared import: a person in possession of contraband goods "shall be deemed liable for the offence". The accused may exculpate himself by establishing force majeure resulting "from an event responsibility for which is not attributable to him and which it was absolutely impossible for him to avoid". The ‘almost irrebutable presumption’….was said to be incompatible with article 6. Held: Contracting States may apply the criminal law to an act where it is not carried out in the normal exercise of one of the rights protected under the Convention, and accordingly, to define the constituent elements in the resulting offence. Contracting States may penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence. Examples of such offences may be found in the laws of the Contracting States. However, the Applicant was not convicted for mere possession of unlawfully imported prohibited goods. Article 392(1) of the Customs Code does not appear under the heading ‘classification of customs offences’ but under that of ‘criminal liability’. Under this provision a conclusion is drawn from a simple fact, which in itself does not necessarily constitute a petty or a more serious offence, that the ‘criminal liability’ for the unlawful importation of the goods, whether they are prohibited or not, or the failure to declare them, lies with the person in whose possession they are found. It infers therefrom a legal presumption on the basis of which (the French Courts) found the Applicant guilty of smuggling prohibited goods…. This shift from the idea of accountability in criminal law to the notion of guilt shows the very relative nature of such a distinction. It raises a question with regard to Article 6.2 of the Convention. The Convention does not prohibit presumptions of fact in principle, but does require certain limits as regards criminal law. If 6.2 merely laid down a guarantee to be respected by the courts in the conduct of legal proceedings, its requirements would in practice overlap with the duty of impartiality imposed in paragraph 1. Above all, the national legislature would be free to strip the trial court of any genuine power of assessment and deprive the presumption of innocence of its substance, if the words ‘according to law’ were construed exclusively with reference of domestic law. Such a situation could not be reconciled with the object and purpose of Article 6, which, by protecting the right to a fair trial and in particular the right to be presumed innocent, is intended to enshrine the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Article 6.2 does not therefore regard presumptions of fact or of law provided for in the criminal law with indifference. It requires States to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
	Link[s] omitted

Woukam Moudefo -v- France [1988] ECHR 20; 10868/84;; [1988] ECHR 20
11 Oct 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	Link[s] omitted

Attorney-General -v- Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) ('Spycatcher') [1990] 1 AC 109; [1988] UKHL 6; [1987] 1 WLR 776; [1988] 3 All ER 545
13 Oct 1988 HL Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Griffiths, Lord Jauncey	Media, Human Rights, Information	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations made. The AG sought to restrain those publications. Held: A duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person (the confidant) in circumstances where he has notice, or is held to have agreed, that the information is confidential, with the effect that it would be just in all the circumstances that he should be precluded from disclosing the information to others. There would be no point in imposing a duty of confidence in respect of the secrets of the marital bed if newspapers were free to publish those secrets when betrayed to them by the unfaithful partner. When trade secrets are betrayed by a confidant it is usually the third party who exploits the information and it is the activity of the third party that must be stopped. The court could look to the Convention to help decide how common law should develop. There was in principle no difference between article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the English law of confidence. "the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential. In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it." and " I conceive it to be my duty, when I am free to do so, to interpret the law in accordance with the obligations of the Crown under [the Convention]. But for present purposes the important words are "when I am free to do so". The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not." Lord Griffiths considered the correct approach to the defence of public interest in a copyright action: "If Peter Wright owns the copyright in Spycatcher, which I doubt, it seems to me extremely unlikely that any court in this country would uphold his claim to copyright if any newspaper or any third party chose to publish Spycatcher and keep such profits as they might make to themselves. I would expect a judge to say that the disgraceful circumstances in which he wrote and published Spycatcher disentitled him to seek the assistance of the court to obtain any redress: see Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co. [1916] 1 Ch. 261." A third limiting principle of the protection afforded by the law of confidence was "although the basis of the law's protection of confidence is that there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure. This limitation may apply, as the learned judge pointed out, to all types of confidential information. It is this limiting principle which may require a court to carry out a balancing operation, weighing the public interest in maintaining confidence against a countervailing public interest favouring disclosure." Lord Jauncey said: "The courts of the United Kingdom will not enforce copyright claims in relation to every original literary work . . The publication of Spycatcher was against the public interest and was in breach of the duty of confidence which Peter Wright owed to the Crown. His action reeked of turpitude. It is in these circumstances inconceivable that a United Kingdom court would afford to him or his publishers any protection in relation to any copyright which either of them may possess in the book." Lord Goff of Chievely said that an obligation of confidence could arise even where the information in question had not been confided by a confider to a confidant: "I realise that, in the vast majority of cases, in particular those concerned with trade secrets, the duty of confidence will arise from a transaction or relationship between the parties – often a contract, in which event the duty may arise by reason of either an express or an implied term of that contract. It is in such cases as these that the expressions "confider" and "confidant" are perhaps most aptly employed. But it is well settled that a duty of confidence may arise in equity independently of such cases; and I have expressed the circumstances in which the duty arises in broad terms, not merely to embrace those cases where a third party receives information from a person who is under a duty of confidence in respect of it, knowing that it has been disclosed by that person to him in breach of his duty of confidence, but also to include certain situations, beloved of law teachers – where an obviously confidential document is wafted by an electric fan out of a window into a crowded street, or where an obviously confidential document, such as a private diary, is dropped in a public place, and is then picked up by a passer-by." Lord Goff set out three limiting principles for the rights of confidentiality: "The first limiting principle (which is rather an expression of the scope of the duty) is highly relevant to this appeal. It is that the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential. In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it. The second limiting principle is that the duty of confidence applies neither to useless information, nor to trivia. There is no need for me to develop this point. The third limiting principle is of far greater importance. It is that, although the basis of the law's protection of confidence is that there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure. This limitation may apply, as the learned judge pointed out, to all types of confidential information. It is this limiting principle which may require a court to carry out a balancing operation, weighing the public interest in maintaining confidence against a countervailing public interest favouring disclosure".
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Martins Moreira -v- Portugal 11371/85; [1988] ECHR 21
26 Oct 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Norris -v- Ireland 10581/83; (1989) 13 EHRR 186; [1988] ECHR 22;; [1988] ECHR 22; [1985] ECHR 13
26 Oct 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Discrimination	Casemap 1 Citers
	A homosexual man complained that the criminalisation of homosexual conduct in Ireland violated his article 8 right to respect for his private life, although he accepted that the risk of being prosecuted was remote. The court accepted that he was a victim. Even an administrative policy of not prosecuting for the offence in question would not have made a difference.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

Nielsen -v- Denmark [1988] ECHR 23; 10929/84; (1988) 11 EHRR 175; [1988] ECHR 23
28 Nov 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Health	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant, a minor, complained about his committal to a child psychiatric ward of a state hospital at his mother's request. The question was whether this was a deprivation of his liberty in violation of article 5. The applicant said that it was, as the ward in which he was placed was a closed ward, he was unable to receive visitors except with the agreement of the staff, special permission was required for him to make telephone calls and for persons outside the hospital to get into contact with him and he was under almost constant surveillance. Held: It did not follow that the case fell within the ambit of article 5. The restrictions that were imposed on the applicant were not of a nature or degree similar to the cases of deprivation of liberty specified in article 5(1). He was not detained as a person of unsound mind so as to bring the case within paragraph (e). He was there at the request of his mother, as to whom there was no evidence of bad faith. "It should be observed at the outset that family life in the Contracting States incorporates a broad range of parental rights and responsibilities in regard to the care and custody of minor children. The care and upbringing of children normally and necessarily require that the parents or an only parent decide where the child must reside and also impose, or authorize others to impose, various restrictions on the child's liberty. Thus the children in a school or other educational or recreational institution must abide by certain rules, which limit their freedom of movement and their liberty in other respects. Likewise a child may have to be hospitalised for medical treatment. Family life in this sense, and especially the rights of parents to exercise parental authority over their children, having due regard to their corresponding parental responsibilities is reconsidered by the [ECHR] in particular by article 8. Indeed the exercise of parental rights constitutes a fundamental element of family life"
	European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom 11234/84; 11209/84; (1988) 11 EHRR 117
29 Nov 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Just satisfaction reserved 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; 11386/85

Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom 1266/84; 11209/84; 11234/84
29 Nov 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-4; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
	Link[s] omitted

Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom 11209/84; [1988] ECHR 24; [1989] ECHR 9
29 Nov 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Brogan & Others -v- United Kingdom 11266/84; [1988] ECHR 24; 11209/84; 11234/84
29 Nov 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo -v- Spain 10590/83; [1988] ECHR 25; (1988) 11 EHRR 360;; [1988] ECHR 25
6 Dec 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Colak -v- Germany 9999/82; [1988] ECHR 26;; [1988] ECHR 26
6 Dec 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

William Mckinnon -v- United Kingdom 12812/87; [1988] ECHR 28
13 Dec 1988 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Wasa Liv Omsesidigt -v- Sweden 13013/87
14 Dec 1988 ECHR CA Norgaard P	Human Rights, Insurance	Casemap 1 Citers
	Commission

Windsor -v- United Kingdom 13081/87; [1988] ECHR 29
14 Dec 1988 ECHR	Human Rights, Police	1 Citers
	The claimant complained that whilst arrested, he had been denied access to a lawyer.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Rothenthurm Commune -v- Switzerland 13252/87
14 Dec 1988 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Local government organisations such as the applicant commune exercising public functions are "governmental organisations" as opposed to "non-governmental organisations" within the meaning of article 25 of the Convention, with the result that the commune which was complaining that proceedings for the expropriation of land for a military training area were in breach of their rights under article 6(1) could not bring an application under that article.

Simpson -v- United Kingdom (1989) 64 DR 188
1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Education	Casemap 1 Citers
	The right to be provided with an education does not guarantee access to any particular institution provided.
	European Convention on Human Rights A2

G -v- Federal Republic of Germany (1989) 60 DR 256
1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	A norm cannot be regarded as a law unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee, if need be with appropriate advice, the consequences which a given course of conduct may entail. However, the law may be clarified and adapted to new circumstances which can reasonably be brought under the original concept of the offence.

Association of General Practitioners -v- Denmark (1989) 62 DR 226
1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Health Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	The contractual entitlement of Danish GPs under a collective agreement to indexation of their remuneration was accepted by the Commission as amounting to a possession under the Convention.
	European Convention on Human Rights 6

Baner -v- Sweden (1989) 60 DR 125
1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant owned land with lakes which were fished by his household and employees; the public were not allowed to fish. New legislation permitted licence-free fishing by everyone. Many more people came to the beaches and fished the lakes; there was an increase in illegal fishing. No compensation was payable in these circumstances, there being no loss of previous income from the grant of licences. The Commission first considered that this legislation did not involve any expropriation, but was a control of use. Next, it recognised that where there was deprivation of property there was normally an inherent right to compensation. It continued: "However, in the Commission's view such a right to compensation sets the framework in which the property may be used and does not, as a rule, contain any right to compensation. This general distinction between expropriation and regulation of use is known in many, if not all, Convention countries. This does not exclude that the law may provide for compensation in cases where a regulation of use may have severe economic consequences to the detriment of the property owner. The Commission is not required to establish in the abstract under which circumstances Article 1 may require that compensation be paid in such cases. When assessing the proportionality of the regulation in question it will be of relevance whether compensation is available and to what extent a concrete economic loss was caused by the legislation. The Commission further recalls that the interference with the applicant's property right was limited to one form of fishing in his waters, namely fishing with hand-held tackle. The applicant had not before the reform derived any income from such fishing. He cannot, therefore, claim any direct loss of income from the reform. As to the allegation that the value of his property was reduced, the Commission notes that the legislation affected many fishing properties all over Sweden and it is not easy to see how a specific and concrete reduction in value could result from this general legislation. Even assuming that some theoretical loss in value could be established, the Commission cannot find that such a loss caused by general legislation must necessarily be compensated on the basis of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."

Ciulla -v- Italy [1989] ECHR 2; 11152/84;; [1989] ECHR 2
22 Feb 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, estoppel); Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-5; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
	Link[s] omitted

Barfod -v- Denmark [1989] ECHR 1; 11508/85;; [1989] ECHR 1
22 Feb 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Bock -v- Germany 11118/84; [1989] ECHR 3; Series A no. 150, § 4; [1989] ECHR 3
29 Mar 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Lamy -v- Belgium [1989] ECHR 5; 10444/83; (1989) 11 EHRR 529; [1989] ECHR 5
30 Mar 1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings As a general rule all evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, giving him an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question witnesses against him.
	Link[s] omitted

Chappell -v- The United Kingdom 10461/83; [1989] ECHR 4; (1990) 12 EHRR 1; [1989] ECHR 4
30 Mar 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The plaintiff in civil proceedings had arranged with the police that, if (as happened) the police obtained a search warrant and the claimant obtained an Anton Piller order, they should be executed simultaneously. The court had been informed of the police interest and was naturally concerned whether the privilege against self-incrimination might be infringed, but was satisfied that the claimant's undertakings in the order would deal with that matter satisfactorily. Held: The order, as made, did not infringe the defendant's Article 8 rights. The court criticised the simultaneously execution of the warrants which might obscure the defendant's right refuse entry to the claimant's solicitor, but did not suggest that the claimant had been wrong to involve the police in the first place or that the defendant was in any way prejudiced by the fact that the police had been informed of potential criminal activity in the course of the claimant's attempts to protect his intellectual property rights.
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Neves E Silva -v- Portugal [1989] ECHR 6; 11213/84;; [1989] ECHR 6
27 Apr 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Hauschildt -v- Denmark [1989] ECHR 7; 10486/83; (1989) 12 EHRR 266;; [1989] ECHR 7
24 May 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings. "in deciding whether in a given case there is a legitimate reason to fear that a particular judge lacks impartiality, the standpoint of the accused is important but not decisive. What is decisive is whether the test can be held objectively justified."
	Link[s] omitted

Oliveira Neves -v- Portugal [1989] ECHR 8; 11612/85;; [1989] ECHR 8
25 May 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	Link[s] omitted

Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 11234/84; 11209/84
30 May 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; 11386/85

Brogan & Ors -v- United Kingdom (Article 50) - 11209/84; 11234/84; 11266/84; [1989] ECHR 9
30 May 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Brogan And Others -v- The United Kingdom (Article 50) 11209/84;11234/84;11266/84;
30 May 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) - Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient.
	Link[s] omitted

Eriksson -v- Sweden 11373/85; [1989] ECHR 10;; [1989] ECHR 10
22 Jun 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Langborger -v- Sweden 11179/84; (1990) 12 EHRR 416; [1989] ECHR 11;; [1989] ECHR 11
22 Jun 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.
	European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
	Link[s] omitted

Bricmont -v- Belgium [1989] ECHR 12; 10857/84;; [1989] ECHR 12
7 Jul 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Soering -v- The United Kingdom 14038/88; (1989) 11 EHRR 439; [1989] ECHR 14; [1989] ECHR 14
7 Jul 1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Extradition	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be made to the judge at the time of sentencing that the United Kingdom wished that the death penalty should not be imposed but there was no promise that that wish would be respected. The likelihood that he may be detained for a long period on death row, might itself engage article 3. The death penalty itself did not breach the Convention. Nevertheless the likelihood was that after extradition he would be treated in breach of his convention rights. Where the Convention right which it was maintained was infringed was, as here, an absolute right, the degree of scrutiny required of any application was the greater. As to Art 1: 'Article 1 . . sets a limit, notably territorial, on the reach of the Convention. In particular the engagement undertaken by a Contracting State is confined to "securing" ("reconnaître" in the French text) the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own "jurisdiction". Further, the Convention does not govern the actions of States not Parties to it, nor does it purport to be a means of requiring the Contracting States to impose Convention standards on other States'. And "inherent in the whole of the Convention is a search for fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's human rights"
	European Convention on Human Rights 1 3
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag -v- Sweden 10873/84; [1991] 13 EHRR 309; [1989] ECHR 15;; [1989] ECHR 15
7 Jul 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap
	An alcohol licence for a restaurant was withdrawn with immediate effect because of financial irregularities, with the result that the restaurant business collapsed. Held: "The government argued that a licence to sell alcoholic beverages could not be considered to be a 'possession' within the meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol . . Like the Commission, however, the Court takes the view that the economic interests connected with the running of [the restaurant] were 'possessions' for the purposes of Article 1 of the Protocol. Indeed, the Court has already found that the maintenance of the licence was one of the principal conditions for the carrying on of the applicant company's business, and that its withdrawal had adverse effects on the goodwill and value of the restaurant. Such withdrawal thus constitutes, in the circumstances of the case, an interference with [the applicant's] right to the 'peaceful enjoyment of [its] possessions'." Licences granted to a restaurant were held to be "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1. The interference with property rights was proportionate even though no compensation was payable for the loss caused and the effect of the legislation was regarded as severe.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Gaskin -v- The United Kingdom 10454/83; [1990] 1 FLR 167; [1989] ECHR 13; (1989) 12 EHRR 36
7 Jul 1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Family, Information	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied. Held: The Court emphasised the need for specific justification for preventing individuals from having access to information which forms part of their private and family life. Relationships between children and foster parents or carers fall within the definition of "family" within the meaning of Article 8. However, the court rejected a submission that Article 10 provided the applicant with a right of access to social services care records concerning periods of his childhood spent in foster care, saying: "The Court holds, as it did in Leander v. Sweden, that 'the right to freedom to receive information basically prohibits a Government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him.' Also in the circumstances of this case, Article 10 does not embody an obligation on the State concerned to impart the information in question to the individual. There has thus been no interference with Mr Gaskin's right to receive information as protected by Article 10."
	European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
	Link[s] omitted

Union Alimentaria Sanders S A -v- Spain 11681/85; [1989] ECHR 16;; [1989] ECHR 16
7 Jul 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Junior Reid, Roy Dennis and Oliver Whylie -v- The Queen; Errol Reece, Robert Taylor and Delroy Quelch -v- the Queen [1989] UKPC 1; [1990] 1 AC 363
27 Jul 1989 PC Lord Diplock	Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Citers
	PC (Jamaica)
	Link[s] omitted

Maximilian Rommelfanger -v- Federal Republic of Germany 12242/86; (1989) 62 D & R 151; [1989] ECHR 27
6 Sep 1989 ECHR Norgaard P	Human Rights, Health Professions, Discrimination
	(Admissibility)
	Link[s] omitted

Whitman -v- United Kingdom 13477/87
4 Oct 1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Education	Casemap 1 Citers
	Commission decision - a reasonable denial of the right to education does not violate the Convention.

Luke Small -v- The United Kingdom 7330/06; [2008] ECHR 134; [2009] ECHR 1001
12 Oct 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

H -v- France 10073/82; [1989] ECHR 17; (1989) 12 EHRR 74; [1989] ECHR 17
24 Oct 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Bezicheri -v- Italy [1989] ECHR 19; 11400/85;; [1989] ECHR 19
25 Oct 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected
	Link[s] omitted

Allan Jacobsson -v- Sweden 10842/84; [1989] 12 EHRR 56; [1989] ECHR 18
25 Oct 1989 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	"According to the Court's case law, this provision comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions; and the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three rules are not distinct in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule."
	European Convention on Human Rights P1 A1
	Link[s] omitted

Markt Intern Verlag Gmbh And Klaus Beermann -v- Germany 10572/83; [1989] ECHR 21; (1989) 12 EHRR 161; [1989] ECHR 21
20 Nov 1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Defamation	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Kostovski -v- The Netherlands [1990] ECHR 8; [1989] ECHR 20; 11454/85; (1989) 12 EHRR 434;;; [1989] ECHR 20
20 Nov 1989 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled him to demonstrate the witnesses unreliability. Held: There had been a violation of article 6(3)(d) where the court treated the statements of anonymous witnesses, who had been examined in the absence of the accused and his representatives, as sufficient proof of guilt of armed robbery. The Court explained its approach: "In principle, all the evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. This does not mean, however, that in order to be used as evidence statements of witnesses should always be made at a public hearing in court: to use as evidence such statements obtained at the pre-trial stage is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs (3)(d) and (1) of Article 6, provided the rights of the defence have been respected. As a rule, these rights require that an accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either at the time the witness was making his statement or at some later stage of the proceedings." and "The right to a fair administration of justice holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that it cannot be sacrificed to expediency. The Convention does not preclude reliance at the investigation stage of criminal proceedings on sources such anonymous informants. However, the subsequent use of anonymous statements as sufficient evidence to found a conviction as in the present case is a different matter. It involved limitations on the right of the defence which were irreconcilable with the guarantees contained in Article 6."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)
	Link[s] omitted

Chichlian And Ekindjian -v- France 10959/84; [1989] ECHR 22;; [1989] ECHR 22
29 Nov 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Simpson -v- United Kingdom 14688/89; [1989] ECHR 26
4 Dec 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Mellacher And Others -v- Austria 10522/83; [1993] ECR I-637; 11011/84; (1989) 12 EHRR 391; [1989] ECHR 25; 11070/84
19 Dec 1989 ECHR R Ryssdal, President	Human Rights, Housing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The case concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. The restrictions were applied to existing leases. It was said that the restrictions brought into play the second paragraph of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Held: The second paragraph reserves to States the right to enact such laws as they deem necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. Such laws are especially called for and usual in the field of housing, which in our modern societies is a central concern of social and economic policies. The possible existence of alternative solutions does not in itself render the contested legislation unjustified. In order to implement such policies, the legislature must have a wide margin of appreciation both with regard to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures of control and as to the choice of the detailed rules for the implementation of such measures. The Court will respect the legislature's judgement as to what is in the general interest unless that judgement be manifestly without reasonable foundation. In remedial social legislation, and in particular in the field of rent control, it must be open to the legislature to take measures affecting the further execution of previously concluded contracts in order to attain the aim of the policy adopted. ECHR Judgment (Merits) - No violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1.
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Brozicek -v- Italy [1989] ECHR 23; 10964/84;; [1989] ECHR 23
19 Dec 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-a; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Kamasinski -v- Austria [1989] ECHR 24; 9783/82;; [1989] ECHR 24
19 Dec 1989 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted