Human Rights - 1996

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 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 106 cases, and was prepared on 10 January 2010.

Poku -v- United Kingdom [1996] 22 EHRR CD 94
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers

Nordstrom-Janzon -v- The Netherlands Unreported 1996
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The parties had settled an earlier dispute under a joint venture agreement on terms which included a provision that disputes between them should not be settled by the ordinary courts but by a special arbitration procedure. The arbitrators rejected all the claims advanced by the applicants. The applicants challenged the award in the Dutch courts on the ground that one of the arbitrators was not independent and impartial. The challenge failed in all the Dutch courts, including the Supreme Court (the Hoge Raad). They argued that the award should be quashed as being contrary to public order interests. Held: Referring to Deweer, constraint was not alleged. Account must be taken, not only of the nature of the arbitration agreement and of the private arbitration proceedings, but also of the legislative framework providing for such proceedings, in order to determine whether the national courts retained a measure of control and whether that control was exercised on the facts: "The Commission observes that the grounds on which arbitral awards may be challenged before national courts differs among the Contracting States and considers that it cannot be required under the Convention that national courts must ensure that arbitral proceedings have been in conformity with Article 6 of the Convention. In some respects – in particular as regards publicity – it is clear that arbitral proceedings are often not even intended to be in conformity with Article 6, and the arbitration agreement entails a renunciation of the full application of that Article. The Commission therefore considers that that an arbitral award does not necessarily have to be quashed because the parties have not enjoyed all the guarantees of Article 6, but each Contracting State may decide itself on which grounds an arbitral award should be quashed." TThe mere appearance of a lack of independence or impartiality on the part of an arbitrator did not lead to the quashing of an award under Dutch law, which required either that there was in fact a lack of independence or impartiality or that the doubts in that regard were so grave that the disadvantaged party could not be required to accept the award. "[The Commission] considers that Article 6 para 1 of the Convention does not require the Dutch courts to apply a different criterion in determining whether or not to quash an arbitral award. It finds it reasonable that in this respect Dutch law requires strong reasons for quashing an already rendered award, since the quashing will often mean that a long and costly arbitral procedure will become useless and that considerable work and expense must be invested in new proceedings. The Commission furthermore notes that in the proceedings before the national courts themselves the applicants were provided with ample opportunity to state their case and to challenge the arguments of the adverse party." The Commission stressed the pivotal role of the national courts in considering whether there has been a breach of article 6 in a particular case relating to arbitration. The more important the article 6 right the greater the scrutiny to be expected. It is easier to waive the requirement that the arbitration proceedings be in public than the requirement that the arbitrators be impartial.

Sanders -v- France 31401/96; (1996) 87 B-DR 160
1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Family	Casemap 1 Citers
	A male Turkish national and a female French national, living together in Istanbul, complained of delays in obtaining a certificate of capacity to marry under French law. The issue as to the obtaining of a certificate related to (alleged) concerns about the prospective wife's mental capacity to marry, under section 175 of the French Civil Code. Held: "The Commission notes that, in the present case, the issue concerns substantive rules, the purpose of which is, inter alia, to preclude marriages of convenience between French citizens and aliens. It does not find this limitation, in itself, to be contrary to Article 12 of the Convention."
	European Convention on Human Rights 12

Coeme and others -v- Belgium 32492/96; [2000] ECHR 249
1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The mischief that Article 7 is designed to prevent is the imposition by the State of (i) criminal liability for an act which did not attract such liability at the time it was committed or (ii) a penalty greater than the maximum permitted when the offence was committed. "The court must verify that at the time when the accused prisoner performed the act which led to him being prosecuted and convicted there was in force a legal provision which made that act punishable, and that the punishment imposed did not exceed the limits fixed by that provision."
	European Convention on Human Rights 7.1
	Link[s] omitted

Kontinnen -v- Finland (1996) 87 DR 68
1996	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The applicant, Tuomo Kottinnen worked on the Finnish Railways. After five years he became a Seventh Day Adventist and declared that he could not work after sunset on Fridays. After several incidents when he left with the early setting of the Finnish winter sun, his employers dismissed him. Held: There had been no infringement of his rights under article 9: "having found his working hours to conflict with his religious convictions, the applicant was free to relinquish his post."
	European Convention on Human Rights 9

Hautanemi -v- Sweden (1996) 22 EHRR CD 155
1996 ECHR	Ecclesiastical, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicants were members of a parish of the Church of Sweden who complained of a violation of article 9 of the Convention because the Assembly of the Church of Sweden had prohibited the use of the liturgy of the Finnish Evangelical-Lutheran Church in their parish. Held: At the relevant time the Church of Sweden and its member parishes were to be regarded as corporations of public law. Since these religious bodies cannot be considered to have been exercising governmental powers, the Church of Sweden and notably the applicant parish can nevertheless be regarded as 'non-governmental organisations' within the meaning of article 25(1). Having held that, as members of the parish, the applicants could be regarded as victims in terms of article 25(1), the Commission added, "The Commission has just found that, for the purposes of article 25 of the Convention, the Church of Sweden and its member parishes are to be regarded as 'non-governmental organisations'. It follows that the respondent state cannot be held responsible for the alleged violation of the applicants' freedom of religion resulting from the decision of the Church Assembly ….. There has thus been no State interference with that freedom."

Gudmundsson -v- Iceland 23285/94; (1996) 21 EHRR CD 89
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	1 Citers
	A revocation of a licence is not a deprivation of property, but rather a control of its use within the second paragraph of article 1 under a proportionate and Convention compliant scheme

Bullock -v- United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHRR CD 85
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The keeping of a pet does not fall within the sphere of the owner's private or family life for the purposes of Article 8.

Mabey -v- United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR CD 123
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	A claimant must show a sufficient and continuing link with a place in order to establish that it is his home for purposes of article 8.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8

Sulak -v- Turkey (1996) 84-A DR 98
1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Education	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) A reasonable denial of the right to education does not violate the Convention.

M A R -v- United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR CD 120
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The applicants complained under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, of their expulsion from the United Kingdom. Held: The complaints were admissible, and called for examination on the merits. (Later settled)

Roosli -v- Germany (1996) 85 DR 149
1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers

Bates -v- United Kingdom 26280/95; Unreported, 16 January 1996
16 Jan 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Animals, Crime	1 Citers
	The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act. Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible.
	Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5

Fouquet -v- France [1996] ECHR 1; 20398/92;; [1996] ECHR 1
31 Jan 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
	Link[s] omitted

A And Others -v- Denmark [1996] ECHR 2; 20826/92;; [1996] ECHR 2
8 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 (A, Eg, C, D, E, F and G); No violation of Art. 6-1 (Feldskov and Lykkeskov Jacobsen); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

John Murray -v- The United Kingdom 18731/91; [1996] ECHR 3; (1996) 23 EHRR 313;; [1996] ECHR 3
8 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Evidence	Casemap 1 Citers
	It was not a breach of human rights to draw inferences from the silence of a defendant.
	Link[s] omitted

Botten -v- Norway [2001] 32 EHRR 3; 16206/90; [1996] ECHR 4;; [1996] ECHR 4
19 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1 (fair hearing); Costs and expenses - claim withdrawn The lower court had had taken evidence in public from the applicant and other witnesses. The appellate court had held a public oral hearing at which the applicant was represented but at which he gave no evidence. Held: That did not infringe Article 6. "….it is necessary to examine whether in the light of the Supreme Court's role and the nature of the issues to be decided by that court there has been a violation in the particular circumstances of the case. In carrying out this examination, the Court will confine itself to consider whether the proceedings in the present case were fair…."
	Link[s] omitted

Gul -v- Switzerland 23218/94; (1996) 22 EHRR 93; [1996] ECHR 5;
19 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Court recognised the possibility that a State might be under an obligation to admit relatives of settled immigrants in order to develop family life. The right to care for 'your own children' is 'a fundamental element of an elementary right.'
	Link[s] omitted

Lobo Machado -v- Portugal [1996] ECHR 6; 15764/89; (1996) 23 EHRR 79;
20 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	One of the characteristics of a fair trial under article 6 is that the proceedings should be "adversarial". The applicant's right, in an adversarial hearing, to see and reply to material before the court: "means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a criminal or civil trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed, even by an independent member of the national legal service, with a view to influencing the Court's decision."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Vermeulen -v- Belgium [1996] ECHR 7; 19075/91;; [1996] ECHR 7
20 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of art. 6-1 (adversarial trial); Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Hussain -v- The United Kingdom 21928/93; (1996) 22 EHRR 1;; [1996] ECHR 8
21 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his punitive period, to bring the case of his continued detention before a court. The court said that he was entitled under article 5(4) to have the issue of his dangerousness to society, a characteristic susceptible to change with the passage of time, decided by a court at reasonable intervals. Article 5 (4) required an oral hearing in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses.
	European Convention on Human Rights 5.4
	Link[s] omitted

Singh -v- The United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 9; 23389/94;; [1996] ECHR 9
21 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Bulut -v- Austria 17358/90; [1996] ECHR 10; (1996) 24 EHRR 84; [1996] ECHR 10
22 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Procurator General had submitted to the Supreme Court comments on a plea of nullity made by a defendant without bringing them to the attention of the accused. Held: The principle of equality of arms had not been respected in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The principle of the equality of arms does not depend on quantifiable unfairness flowing from a procedural inequality. It is a matter for the defence to assess whether a submission deserves a reaction. It is therefore unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defence. There had been no violation of article 6(1) where there had been no oral hearing of the applicant's appeal by the Supreme Court which it rejected summarily on the ground that the appeal was manifestly without merit. The Court was not satisfied that the appeal had raised questions of fact bearing on the assessment of the applicant's guilt or innocence that would have necessitated a hearing.
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Putz -v- Austria [1996] ECHR 11; 18892/91;; [1996] ECHR 11
22 Feb 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc No violation of Art. 6; No violation of Art. 13
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Mulcahy -v- Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732; [1996] 2 All ER 758; [1996] EWCA Civ 1323; [1996] 2 WLR 474
27 Feb 1996 CA	Health and Safety, Armed Forces, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	A serving soldier in the Artillery Regiment was serving in Saudi Arabia in the course of the Gulf war. He was injured when he was part of a team managing a Howitzer, which was firing live rounds into Iraq, and he was standing in front of the gun when it was negligently fired by the gun commander. The Ministry of Defence sought to have the application struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The judge held at first instance that there should be a trial but on appeal the Court of Appeal held that even on the facts pleaded, the plaintiff did not have a cause of action in negligence against the defendant. No duty of care can be owed by one soldier to another on the battlefield, nor can a safe system of work be required from any employer under such circumstances.
	Human Rights Act 1998
	Link[s] omitted

Murray -v- United Kingdom
1 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	A delay of 24 hours in allowing access to a solicitor, for a terrorist suspect arrestee, was a breach of his human rights.
	European Convention on Human Rights

Mitap And Müftüoglu -v- Turkey 15530/89;15531/89; [1996] ECHR 13
25 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Preliminary objection partially allowed (ratione temporis); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings.
	Link[s] omitted

Mitap And MÜFtÜOglu -v- Turkey 15530/89 ; 15531/89
25 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection partially allowed (ratione temporis); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mitap And MÜFtÜOglu -v- Turkey 15530/89; [1996] ECHR 13
25 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Doorson -v- The Netherlands 20524/92; (1996) 22 EHRR 330; [1996] ECHR 14
26 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Evidence was given by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, they were ultimately questioned at an appeal stage, in the presence of counsel, but not the defendant, and without the identity of the witnesses being revealed to counsel. Held: The Convention does not guarantee a right to face to face confrontation. Even in the case of anonymous witnesses, the Court accepted that exceptions may be made, provided that sufficient steps are taken to counter-balance the handicaps under which the defence laboured and a conviction is not based solely or decisively on anonymous statements. "While it would clearly have been preferable for the applicant to attend the questioning of the witnesses, the court considers on balance that the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was entitled to consider that the interests of the applicant were in this respect outweighed by the need to ensure the safety of the witnesses." and "principles of fair trial also require that in appropriate cases the interests of the defence are balanced against those of witnesses or victims called upon to testify":
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ]

Leutscher -v- The Netherlands 17314/90; [1996] ECHR 15; (1996) 24 EHRR 181; [1996] ECHR 15
26 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible); No violation of Art. 6-2 - The Commission distinguished cases in which there has been no acquittal on the merits of the accusation.
	Link[s] omitted

Goodwin -v- The United Kingdom 17488/90; (1996) 22 EHRR 123; [1996] ECHR 16;
27 Mar 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Media	Casemap 1 Citers
	An order for a journalist to reveal his source was a breach of his right of free expression: "The court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance. Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of contracting states and is affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest."
	European Convention on Human Rights Art 10
	Link[s] omitted

Opinion No 2/94
16 Apr 1996 ECJ	Human Rights, European
	The European Union has no power to accede to the Human Rights Convention.
	Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969)

Gerlinde Muhle And Gerhard Muhle -v- Germany 21773/05; [1996] ECHR 425
22 Apr 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Phocas -v- France 17869/91; [1996] ECHR 17;; [1996] ECHR 17
23 Apr 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc No violation of P1-1; Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); No violation of Art. 6-1
	Link[s] omitted

Remli -v- France 16839/90; (1996) 22 EHRR 253; [1996] ECHR 18;; [1996] ECHR 18
23 Apr 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) (Art. 14+6); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) (Art. 6); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time) (Art. 6); Violation of Art. 6; Lack of jurisdiction (injunction to State); Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings A juror in a trial had made racist remarks. D objected, but the court devclined to enquire further. Held: "It is not for the Court to rule on . . . whether the racist remark attributed to the juror in question was actually made. It notes merely that Mrs M's statement - which contained a serious allegation in the context of the case - was filed with the Assize Court by the applicant's lawyers, who asked the Court to take formal note of it. The Court dismissed their application without even examining the evidence submitted to it, on the purely formal ground that it was 'not able to take formal note of events alleged to have occurred out of its presence'. Nor did it order that evidence should be taken to verify what had been reported - and, if it was established, take formal note of it as requested by the defence - although it could have done so. Consequently, the applicant was unable either to have the juror in question replaced by one of the additional jurors or to rely on the fact in issue in support of his appeal on points of law. Nor could he challenge the juror, since the jury had been finally empanelled and no appeal lay against the Assize Court's judgment other than on points of law. Like the Commission, the Court considers that article 6(1) of the Convention imposes an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it is 'an impartial tribunal' within the meaning of that provision where, as in the instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit. In the instant case, however, the Rhône Assize Court did not make any such check, thereby depriving Mr Remli of the possibility of remedying, if it proved necessary, a situation contrary to the requirements of the Convention. This finding, regard being had to the confidence which the courts must inspire in those subject to their jurisdiction, suffices for the Court to hold that there has been a breach of article 6(1)."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
	Link[s] omitted

Boughanemi -v- France 22070/93; (1996) 22 EHRR 228; [1996] ECHR 19;
24 Apr 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	A Tunisian national lived in France. In his youth. He was deported after being convicted of a number of serious criminal offences. He returned illegally and formed a relationship with a French national whose child he acknowledged to be his. He complained that his deportation was in breach of Article 8. The Commission admitted the complaint saying that, despite the serious nature of the convictions that had led to the deportation, a fair balance had not been struck between the aims pursued and the right to respect for private and family life. Held: "The Court acknowledges that it is for the Contracting States to maintain public order, in particular by exercising their right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, to control the entry and residence of aliens and notably to order the expulsion of aliens convicted of criminal offences. However, their decisions in this field must, in so far as they may interfere with a right protected under Article 8(1), be necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether the interference was "necessary", the Court makes allowance for the margin of appreciation that is left to the Contracting States in this field. Its task consists of ascertaining whether the deportation in issue struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder or crime, on the other." There was no violation of Article 8 in this case..
	Link[s] omitted

Gustafsson -v- Sweden 15573/89; [1996] ECHR 20; [1998] ECHR 67;; [1996] 22 EHRR 409
25 Apr 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 13; No violation of P1-1
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ] - [ ECHR ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Kinnunen -v- Finland 24950/94; [1996] ECHR 104
15 May 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) In a criminal case of fraud, the claimant said the retention of his photographs and fingerprints by the police after his acquittal, infringed his right to private life. The Commission rejected the complaint, but noted that the information had been properly taken on his arrest, did not contain any surveillance or similar information or opinions which he might wish to refute, and therefore "was not of such a character that it could have adversely affected the applicant any more significantly than the publicly known fact that he had been charged with, but acquitted of, certain charges."
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

Ausiello -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 21; 20331/92;; [1996] ECHR 21
21 May 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected
	Link[s] omitted

T -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] AC 742; [1996] Imm AR 443; [1996] 2 WLR 766; [1996] 2 All ER 865; [1996] UKHL 8
22 May 1996 HL Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne­-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick	Immigration, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated with the bomb attach which was disproportionate to those aims. Held: The involvement by the applicant in a bomb attack disqualified him from applying for asylum. The use of terrorism denied the possibility of protection for political views. For a crime to be political in nature, there had to be shown a direct relationship between the crime and t epolitical aim. Not all terrorist acts fall outside the protection of the Convention, and not all means of investigating suspected terrorist acts fall outside the protection of the Convention. Lord Mustill: "although it is easy to assume that the appellant invokes a 'right of asylum', no such right exists. Neither under international nor English municipal law does a fugitive have any direct right to insist on being received by a country of refuge. Subject only to qualifications created by statute this country is entirely free to decide, as a matter of executive discretion, what foreigners it allows to remain within its boundaries." Lord Lloyd of Berwick said that in a case concerning an international convention it was obviously desirable that decisions in different jurisdictions should, so far as possible, be kept in line with each other.
	Geneva Convention 1951 33
	Link[s] omitted

Thomann -v- Switzerland 17602/91; [1996] ECHR 24;
10 Jun 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Pullar -v- The United Kingdom [1996] 22 ECHR 391; 22399/93; [1996] ECHR 23;; [1996] ECHR 23
10 Jun 1996 ECHR	Criminal Practice, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant P was an elected councillor. He faced a charge of corruption, being said to have have offered, for reward, to support a planning application made by M, a partner in a firm of architects, and C, a partner in a firm of quantity surveyors. He was tried before a sheriff and a jury in July 1992. M and C were the leading prosecution witnesses. Among the jurors summoned to the trial was F, a junior employee of M's firm who had received notice of dismissal on grounds of redundancy shortly before the trial began. F informed the clerk of the court of his employment in M's firm, but the clerk, having ascertained that F did not know P and was ignorant of the facts, took no action and did not inform the sheriff or the procurator fiscal or defending lawyers. M, on later seeing F sitting as a juror, told the clerk of his connection with F, but the clerk again took no action and informed no one. P was convicted. His lawyers learned of the connection between F and M only after the trial, and appealed to the High Court of Justiciary. That court had held that the clerk ought to have informed the sheriff, and if he had F would probably have been excused, but that a mere suspicion of bias was insufficient to justify quashing a verdict, and it was necessary to prove that a miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. So the appeal failed. The Commission unanimously found a breach of article 6(1) of the Convention: in the circumstances of the case the impartiality of the jury which convicted P was capable of appearing open to doubt and P's fears in this regard could be considered as objectively justified. Held: By a bare majority of 5-4, there had been no violation. Knowledge of a person did not necessarily lead to prejudice in his favour, and that it had to be decided whether the familiarity in question was of such a nature and degree as to indicate a lack of impartiality on the part of the tribunal. F had not worked on the project giving rise to the prosecution, and it was not clear that an objective observer would conclude that F, having just received notice of redundancy, would be more inclined to believe M rather than the witnesses for the defence. The presence of the complainant's employee on the jury did not stop the jury being impartial and the trial fair. The court recognised the several features of jury trial in Britain which help to guarantee the objective impartiality of the jury. Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d
	European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) [1996] EWCA Civ 510; (1997) 1 All ER 58; [1996] 2 FLR 765
20 Jun 1996 CA Butler-Sloss LJ	Children, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: "Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public from all or part of the trial "in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require. The right of freedom of expression contained in Article 10(1) is subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties which may be imposed by the member state under Article 10(2). It would seem to me that the present procedures in family proceedings are in accordance with the spirit of the Convention."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Illich Sanchez Ramirez -v- France 86 DR 155
24 Jun 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap
	The applicant was arrested in Khartoum by Sudanese security forces and handed over to French police officers who escorted him to France in a French military aircraft. The ECommHR was willing to accept that he was effectively under the authority, and therefore the jurisdiction, of France on SAA principles, notwithstanding that this authority was being exercised abroad.

Amuur -v- France 19776/92; (1996) 22 EHRR 533; [1996] ECHR 25;; [1996] ECHR 25
25 Jun 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. 5-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings "In order to determine whether someone has been 'deprived of his liberty' within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. Holding aliens in the international zone does indeed involve a restriction upon liberty, but one which is not in every respect comparable to that which obtains in centres for the detention of aliens pending deportation. Such confinement, accompanied by suitable safeguards for the persons concerned, is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations, particularly under the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. States' legitimate concern to foil the increasingly frequent attempts to get round immigration restrictions must not deprive asylum seekers of the protection afforded by these Conventions. Such holding should not be prolonged excessively, otherwise there would be a risk of it turning a mere restriction on liberty—inevitable with a view to organising the practical details of the alien's repatriation or, where he has requested asylum, while his application for leave to enter the territory for that purpose is considered—into a deprivation of liberty. In that connection account should be taken of the fact that the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country. Although by the force of circumstances the decision to order holding must necessarily be taken by the administrative or police authorities, its prolongation requires speedy review by the courts, the traditional guardians of personal liberties. Above all, such confinement must not deprive the asylum seeker of the right to gain effective access to the procedure for determining refugee status".
	Link[s] omitted

Pardo -v- France (Revision) 13416/87
10 Jul 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Request for revision admissible

Hibbs and Birmingham -v- United Kingdom 11991/96
18 Jul 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Quakers objected to the obligation to contribute through general taxation to funds which may then be used by the State for arms procurement. Held: The Convention is directed primarily to the personal sphere of personal belief and worship and does not guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere of society as a whole in a way which is dictated by particular religious beliefs. The claim was inadmissible.

Zubani -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 33; [1999] ECHR 34; 14025/88;; [1999] ECHR 34; [1996] ECHR 33
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved
	Link[s] omitted

Hamer -v- France 19953/92; [1996] ECHR 30;
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Ferrantelli and Santangelo -v- Italy 19874/92; [1996] 23 EHRR 288; [1996] ECHR 29;
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Evidence	1 Citers
	The matter of admissibility of evidence is primarily one for the national courts: "It [the Court] recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair."
	Link[s] omitted

Johansen -v- Norway 17383/90; (1997) 23 EHRR 33; [1996] ECHR 31;
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13
	Link[s] omitted

C -v- Belgium 21794/93; [1996] ECHR 28;; [1996] ECHR 28
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 14+8
	Link[s] omitted

Allenet De Ribemont -v- France (Interpretation) 15175/89; [1995] ECHR 5; [1996] ECHR 27;;; [2007] ECHR 315; [1996] ECHR 27
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Lack of jurisdiction (interpretation in abstract); Interpretation
	Link[s] omitted

Yagiz -v- Turkey [1996] ECHR 32; 19092/91;; [1996] ECHR 32
7 Aug 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (ratione temporis); Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (non-exhaustion)
	Link[s] omitted

Logan -v- United Kingdom 24875/94
6 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Children	Casemap 1 Citers
	The complaint was that the mandatory child support payments meant that the father could not visit his children as often as he was entitled under the court's order to do. The complaint of a direct breach of article 8 failed because he could not show that the impact upon his family life was sufficiently grave, but in another case it might have been.
	European Convention on Human Rights

Akdivar and Others -v- Turkey [1996] ECHR 35; [1998] ECHR 25; 21893/93;;; [1996] ECHR 35
16 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 25-1; Violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14; No violation of Art. 18; Not necessary to examine Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 5; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - reserved; Non-pecuniary damage - reserved; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings In assessing whether domestic remedies have been exhausted, account should be taken not only of the formal remedies available in the legal system concerned but also of the particular circumstances of the case in question.
	Link[s] omitted

Matos E Silva, Lda , And Others -v- Portugal 15777/89; [1996] ECHR 37;; [1996] ECHR 37
16 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione materiae); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of Art. 13 (access); No violation of Art. 6-1 (access); Violation of Art. 6-1 (length); Violation of P1-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

SÜSsmann -v- Germany [1996] ECHR 38; 20024/92;; [1996] ECHR 38
16 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1 (length)
	Link[s] omitted

Gaygusuz -v- Austria 17371/90; (1996) 23 EHRR 364;; [1996] ECHR 36
16 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Benefits	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was available under the material Austrian legislation, but one of the conditions was that the applicant should "possess Austrian nationality", and so the applicant was refused. Held: Article 14 taken with Article 1P applied to the case and had been violated. "36. According to the court's established case law, Article 14 of the Convention 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 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 one or more of them. 37. The applicant and the Turkish Government argued that Article 14 of the Convention was applicable in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They referred to the reasoning of the Commission, which found that the award of emergency assistance was linked to the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. 38. The Austrian Government, however, submitted that emergency assistance did not come within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Entitlement thereto did not result automatically from the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. It was an emergency payment granted by the State to people in need. Consequently, Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable either. 39. The Court notes that at the material time emergency assistance was granted to persons who had exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit and satisfied the other statutory conditions laid down in… the… Act. Entitlement to this social benefit is therefore linked to the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, which is a precondition for the payment of unemployment benefit. It follows that there is no entitlement to emergency assistance where such contributions have not been made. 40. In the instant case it has not been argued that the applicant did not satisfy that condition; the refusal to grant him emergency assistance was based exclusively on the finding that he did not have Austrian nationality and did not fall into any of the categories exempted from that condition. 41. The Court considers that the right to emergency assistance – in so far as provided for in the applicable legislation – is a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. That provision is therefore applicable without it being necessary to rely solely on the link between entitlement to emergency assistance and the obligation to pay 'taxes or other contributions'. Accordingly, as the applicant was denied emergency assistance on a ground of distinction covered by Article 14, namely his nationality, that provision is also applicable."
	European Convention on Human Rights 14 1P
	Link[s] omitted

Buckley -v- The United Kingdom 20348/92; 23/1995/529/615; [1996] ECHR 39; (1996) 23 EHRR 101; [1996] ECHR 39
25 Sep 1996 ECHR	Planning, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures were excessive and disproportionate. Even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities. The Commission found that the interests of the applicant outweighed the general interest. The Court, also by a majority, took the opposite view: it concluded that the responsible planning authorities had arrived at their decision after weighing in the balance the various competing interests at issue; that it was not for the Court to sit in appeal on the merits of that decision; that the reasons relied on by the planning authorities were relevant and sufficient; and that the means employed to achieve the legitimate aims pursued could not be regarded as disproportionate. A denial of permission for a gypsy to live on his own land was not a breach of his human rights. "'Home' is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a 'home' which attracts the protection of Article 8(1) will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links. The factor of 'unlawfulness' is relevant rather to considerations under paragraph 2 of that provision of 'in accordance with law' and to the balancing exercise undertaken between the interests of the community and those of the individual in assessing the necessity of any interference". Hudoc No violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 14+8
	European Convention on Human Rights 14
	Link[s] omitted

Miailhe -v- France (No 2) [1996] ECHR 42; 18978/91; (1996) 23 EHRR 491; [1996] ECHR 42
26 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of Art. 6-1. Questions as to the admissibility of evidence are for the national court.
	Link[s] omitted

Manoussakis And Others -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 41; 18748/91;; [1996] ECHR 41
26 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 9; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Di Pede -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 40; 15797/89;; [1996] ECHR 40
26 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
	Link[s] omitted

Zappia -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 43; 24295/94;; [1996] ECHR 43
26 Sep 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (out of time); Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - financial award; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Dwight Lamott Henfield -v- The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas (Appeal No 26 of 1996) and Ricardo Farrington -v- The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas [1996] UKPC 36; [1997] AC 413; Appeal No 26 of 1996 and Appeal No 37 of 1996; [1996] UKPC 4
14 Oct 1996 PC	Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	(The Bahamas) A delay in carrying out an execution for 3.5 years, where the target delay had been set at 2 years, was inhuman treatment, and the execution should be set aside. The essential question in Pratt was whether the execution of a man following long delay after his sentence to death can amount to inhuman punishment contrary to Article 17(1).
	[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]

Hols -v- Netherlands Unreported, 19 October 1996; 25206/94
19 Oct 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court arranged a live link transmission where both counsel were in the room with the witness while the judge and accused remained in the courtroom. Held: The application was declared inadmissible. The Convention does not guarantee the accused a right to be in the same room as the witness giving evidence. What matters is that the defence should have a proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against the accused. These requirements can be satisfied even where, for good reason, the accused is not physically present at the questioning.
	European Convention on Human Rights

Stubbings and Others -v- The United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 213; [1996] ECHR 44; 22083/93; 22095/93
22 Oct 1996 ECHR	Limitation, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: “Limitation periods in personal injury cases are a common feature of the domestic legal systems of the Contracting States. They serve several important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential defendants from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence which might have become unreliable and incomplete because of the passage of time.”
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
	Link[s] omitted

Levages Prestations Services -v- France [1996] ECHR 46; 21920/93;; [1996] ECHR 46
23 Oct 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Ankerl -v- Switzerland 17748/91; [1996] ECHR 45;; [1996] ECHR 45
23 Oct 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6-1 "the Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were 'fair' within the meaning of Article 6.1".
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
	Link[s] omitted

De Salvador Torres -v- Spain [1996] ECHR 47; 21525/93;; [1996] ECHR 47
24 Oct 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-3-a
	Link[s] omitted

Guillot -v- France [1996] ECHR 48; 22500/93;; [1996] ECHR 48
24 Oct 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales ex parte Taher Nawaz [1996] EWHC Admin 149
25 Oct 1996 Admn Leggatt LJ, with whom Thorpe LJ, Mummery LJ	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The privilege against self incrimination was lost by the act of voluntarily submitting to the rules of a professional institute. Leggatt LJ: "Waiver of privilege We indicated to counsel that for the purposes of this appeal we were content to assume, without deciding, that the privilege from self-incrimination at least extends to investigations of a quasi-judicial character such as we are concerned with. We have also assumed that the privilege was sufficiently claimed by Mr Nawaz's letter of 6th April 1994. Mr Sears submitted in writing that the waiver of privilege against self-incrimination is analogous with the abrogation of privilege by statutory provision. Orally, he pressed the argument with less force. Perhaps he had concluded that abrogation and waiver are not analogous for abrogation consists in the deprivation by Parliament of a privilege which a person otherwise enjoys, whereas waiver occurs where a person voluntarily foregoes a privilege that is his. Abrogation deprives him of choice, waiver represents an exercise of choice. When a person enters a profession he accepts its duties and liabilities as well as its rights and powers. Similarly, he may acquire or surrender privileges and immunities. Nevertheless, the principle that privilege is not to be regarded as having been abrogated, except by express words or necessary implication, applies also to waiver. In my judgment, acceptance of a duty to provide information demanded of an accountant constitutes a waiver by the member concerned of any privilege from disclosure. It is plainly in the public interest, as well as the interests of the profession, that the Institute should be enabled to obtain all such information in the possession of its members as is relevant to complaints of their professional misconduct. Mr Sears sought to reinforce his argument by contending that it is wrong to suggest that by agreeing to be bound by the rules of the Institute Mr Nawaz impliedly waived his right to assert privilege. I do not see why. It is true that this court has declined to hold that when one person becomes the fiduciary servant or agent of another they are to be treated as having impliedly contracted, they will not invoke the privilege of self-incrimination against the other. In the case of membership of a profession, the member accepts its rules and agrees to abide by them and to fulfil their requirements. Upon becoming a chartered accountant, it shall be the duty of every member, in accordance with paragraph 8(a) in Schedule 2 of the Supplemental Charter, to provide such information as investigation may consider necessary to discharge its functions. Compliance with that duty necessarily and inevitably precludes the exercise of any privilege that would have excused the provision of the information."
	Link[s] omitted

Katikaridis And Others -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 56; [1998] ECHR 22; 19385/92;;; [1998] ECHR 22; [1996] ECHR 56
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - reserved; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Chahal -v- The United Kingdom 70/1995; 22414/93; (1996) 23 EHRR 413; [1996] ECHR 54
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Immigration, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of the day decided that he should be deported from this country because his continued presence here was not conducive to the public good for reasons of a political nature, namely the international fight against terrorism. If removed to India there was a real risk that he would be killed or tortured by security forces. Held: The UK system did not give an asylum seeker a proper chance to argue his case. "In determining whether it is has been substantiated that there is a real risk that the applicant, if expelled to India, would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, the Court will assess all the material placed before it and, if necessary, material obtained of its own motion. Furthermore, since the material point in time for the assessment of risk is the date of the Court's consideration of the case, it will be necessary to take account of evidence which has come to light since the Commission's review." The expedient of appointing security-cleared counsel, instructed by the court, who would cross-examine the witnesses and generally assist the court to test the strength of the State's case, served to illustrate "that there are techniques which can be employed which both accommodate legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial measure of procedural justice". "Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
	European Convention on Human Rights A3 A13 A5.4
	Link[s] omitted

Ceteroni -v- Italy 22461/93;22465/93; [1996] ECHR 53
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) - Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Not necessary to examine P4-2; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings.
	Link[s] omitted

Ceteroni -v- Italy 22461/93; [1996] ECHR 53
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Ahmet Sadik -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 49; 18877/91;; [1996] ECHR 49
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion)
	Link[s] omitted

Tsomtsos And Others -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 59; [1998] ECHR 24; 20680/92;;; [1998] ECHR 24; [1996] ECHR 59
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage - reserved; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Cantoni -v- France [1996] ECHR 52; 17862/91;; [1996] ECHR 52
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

PrÖTsch -v- Austria [1996] ECHR 57; 15508/89;; [1996] ECHR 57
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Domenichini -v- Italy 15943/90; [1996] ECHR 55;; [1996] ECHR 55
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Prisons	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court was concerned with the monitoring of the correspondence of prisoners, including legal correspondence. The Italian law permitted such monitoring if a judge, in his discretion, ordered it in a reasoned decision. Held: "The Court reiterates that while a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion, it is impossible to attain absolute certainty in the framing of the law, and the likely outcome of any search for certainty would be excessive rigidity. In this instance, however, Law No 354 leaves the authorities too much latitude. In particular, it goes no further than identifying the category of persons whose correspondence may be censored and the competent court, without saying anything about the length of the measure or the reasons that may warrant it. The gaps in . . . the Law weigh in favour of rejecting the Government's argument. In sum, the Italian Law does not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities, so that Mr. Domenichini did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. There has therefore been a breach of Article 8."
	Link[s] omitted

Silva Rocha -v- Portugal 18165/91; [1996] ECHR 58;; [1996] ECHR 58
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant was tried on charges of aggravated homicide and others, but the court found him mentally disturbed, preventing criminal responsibility. He was dangerous it and ordered him to be detained. This security measure remained for a minimum period of three years, for general deterrence reasons. He challenged his detention under article 5(1) claiming a violation of article 5(4) there being no provision for judicial supervision of his confinement. The commission said the case could not be distinguished from the cases of Winterwerp and X v United Kingdom and declared his complaint admissible. Held: There was no violation. He had been lawfully detained within the meaning of article 5(1). There had been no violation of article 5(4) because it involved a homicide committed by a person who could not be held responsible for his actions and who was at the same time dangerous. The seriousness of the offences together with the risk that he represented for himself as well as for others could reasonably justify his being removed from society for at least three years. For that period the review required by article 5(4) of the Convention was incorporated in the detention decision taken in this instance by the Oporto Criminal Court. It was therefore not until those three years had elapsed that the applicant's right to 'take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided … by a court' at reasonable intervals took effect. The court noted that legislation applied to Mr Silva Rocha, provided for a periodic and automatic judicial review after two years and made it possible for him to apply to the court at any moment to have the detention measure lifted." The intervals between the reviews were not excessive and he was discharged as soon as he had ceased to be dangerous.
	Link[s] omitted

Calogero Diana -v- Italy [1996] ECHR 51; 15211/89;; [1996] ECHR 51
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses - claim rejected
	Link[s] omitted

Bizzotto -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 50; 22126/93;; [1996] ECHR 50
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (six month period); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5-1
	Link[s] omitted

Ceteroni -v- Italy 22461/93; 22465/93
15 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Not necessary to examine P4-2; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Konkama -v- Sweden [1996] ECHR 79; (1996) 87-A DR 78
25 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Admissibility decision. The right to fish or hunt is a civil right within the meaning of article 6.
	Link[s] omitted

Wingrove -v- The United Kingdom Case 19/1995; [1997] 24 EHRR 1; 17419/90; [1996] ECHR 60; [1996] ECHR 60
25 Nov 1996 ECHR	Media, Human Rights, Crime	1 Citers
	The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video "Visions of Ecstasy" on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. Held: The provision of a system which would allow the refusal of a video certificate permitting distribution, is within an individual nation's margin of appreciation, and not an infringement of the film distributors right of free speech. "Whereas there is little scope under Article 10 paragraph 2…. for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest…. a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the contracting states when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals." "…the English law of blasphemy does not prohibit the expression, in any form, of views hostile to the Christian religion. Nor can it be said that opinions which are offensive to Christians necessarily fall within its ambit. As the English courts have indicated, it is the manner in which views are advocated rather than the views themselves which the law seeks to control. The extent of insult to religious feelings must be significant as is clear from the use by the courts of the adjectives "contemptuous", "reviling", "scurrilous", "ludicrous" to depict material of a sufficient degree of offensiveness. The high degree of profanation that must be attained constitutes in itself, a safeguard against arbitrariness. It is against this background that the asserted justification under Article 10(2) in the decisions of the national authorities must be considered."
	Video Recordings Act 1984 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10.2
	Link[s] omitted

Ure -v- United Kingdom 28027/95
27 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Housing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant's tenancy came to an end on expiry of a notice to quit given by his wife, formerly a joint tenant with him, and possession was ordered. The Commission held that his complaint under article 8 was manifestly ill-founded because the alleged interference with the applicant's rights under the article was justified under paragraph (2) of the article.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 8.2

Ahmut -v- The Netherlands (1997) 24 EHRR 62; 21702/93; [1996] ECHR 61;; [1996] ECHR 61
28 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The bond between natural parents and their children is a strong indicator of the existence of family life: “from the moment of the child's birth and by the very fact of it, there exists between him and his parents a bond amounting to “family life”, which subsequent events cannot break save in exceptional circumstances”.
	European Convention on Human Rights 8
	Link[s] omitted

Nsona -v- The Netherlands [1996] ECHR 62; 23366/94;; [1996] ECHR 62
28 Nov 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Preliminary objection rejected (victim); No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine Art. 13
	Link[s] omitted

Finland 24949/94
3 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Employment	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) An employee of the Finnish State Railways was dismissed for failing to respect his working hours on the basis that to work after sunset on a Friday was forbidden by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, of which he was a member. Held: Although his refusal was motivated by religious convictions, such a situation did not give rise to protection under Article 9(1). He was not prevented from manifesting his religion or belief (inter alia, he was free to resign).
	European Convention on Human Rights 9

Konttinen -v- Finland 249/49/94; (1996) 87-A DR 68
3 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Commission) The applicant was a civil servant and a Seventh-day Adventist. He was dismissed for his refusal to continue working after sunset on Fridays. His contract required him to work on Friday evenings after sunset. Held: The claim was manifestly ill-founded. The applicant had a duty to accept certain obligations to the State employer, including "…..the obligation to observe the rule governing his working hours. He was cautioned by his employer, not having relinquished his post after the irreconcilable conflict arose between his religious convictions and his working hours. In these particular circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant was not dismissed because of his religious convictions but for having refused to respect his working hours. This refusal, even if motivated by his religious convictions, cannot as such be considered protected by Article 9 para. 1. Nor has the applicant shown that he was pressured to change his religious views or prevented from manifesting his religion or belief.The Commission would add that, having found his working hours to conflict with his religious convictions, the applicant was free to relinquish his post. The Commission regards this as the ultimate guarantee of his right to freedom of religion. In sum there is no indication that the applicant's dismissal interfered with the exercise of his rights under Article 9 para.1"
	European Convention on Human Rights

Vacher -v- France [1996] ECHR 67; 20368/92;; [1996] ECHR 67
17 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Saunders -v- The United Kingdom 19187/91; [1997] 23 EHRR 313; 1996-VI; [1998] 1 BCLC 362; [1996] ECHR 65
17 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Company, Evidence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned, however, with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent. As commonly understood in the legal systems of the contracting parties to the Convention and elsewhere, it does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through the use of compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will of the suspect such as, inter alia, documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing. Hudoc "The Court recalls that, although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention, the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, ... that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused. In this sense the right is closely linked to the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6(2) of the Convention. The right not to incriminate oneself is primarily concerned, however, with respecting the will of an accused person to remain silent. ..."
	European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
	Link[s] omitted

Duclos -v- France 20940/92;20941/92;20942/92; [1996] ECHR 64
17 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	ECHR 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.
	Link[s] omitted

Terra Woningen B -v- -v- The Netherlands [1996] ECHR 66; 20641/92;; [1996] ECHR 66
17 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, estoppel); Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Ahmed -v- Austria 24 EHRR 278; 25964/94; [1996] ECHR 63; (1996) 24 EHRR 278;; [1996] ECHR 63
17 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Immigration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint); Violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings The court noted that Somalia (the country to which Austria had proposed expelling the applicant): "was still in a state of civil war and fighting was going on between a number of clans vying with each other for control of the country. There was no indication that the dangers to which the applicant would have been exposed in 1992 had ceased to exist or that any public authority would be able to protect him."
	Link[s] omitted

Duclos -v- France 20940/92; [1996] ECHR 64
17 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Duclos -v- France 20940/92 ; 20941/92 ; 209
17 Dec 1996 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 - domestic proceedings 20940/92; 20941/92; 20942/92

Efstratiou -v- Greece [1996] ECHR 69; 24095/94;; [1996] ECHR 69
18 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Valsamis -v- Greece 21787/93; [1996] ECHR 72; (1996) 24 EHRR 294; [1996] ECHR 72
18 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3; No violation of Art. 9; No violation of P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+P1-2; Violation of Art. 13+9; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings A child was punished by her school for refusing to attend a National Day parade in contravention of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, to which her parents were also party. Held: The application failed. Article 9 did not confer a right to exemption from disciplinary rules which applied generally and in a neutral manner and there had been no interference with the child's right to freedom to manifest her religion or belief.
	European Convention on Human Rights 9
	Link[s] omitted

Aksoy -v- Turkey 21987/93; [1997] 23 EHHR 533; [1996] ECHR 68;; [1996] ECHR 68
18 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	In the context of Kurdish separatist terrorism which had claimed almost 8000 lives, the court accepted a derogation from the convention because of a state of emergency. However the applicant had been detained, tortured and finally released without charge. Damages were awarded for pecuniary loss and for non-pecuniary loss (distress to the father of the applicant who continued the case after his son had died).
	European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Loizidou -v- Turkey (Merits) [1996] ECHR 70; 15318/89
18 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court was asked whether Turkey was answerable under the Convention for its acts in Northern Cyprus. Held: It was unnecessary to determine whether Turkey actually exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the authorities of the TRNC. It was obvious from the fact that more than 30,000 Turkish military personnel were engaged in active duties in northern Cyprus that her army exercised effective control over that part of the island. Such control entailed her responsibility for the policies and actions of the TRNC. Those affected by such policies or actions (including the applicant) therefore came within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey for the purposes of Article 1 of the ECHR.
	Link[s] omitted

Scott -v- Spain [1996] ECHR 71; 21335/93;; [1996] ECHR 71
18 Dec 1996 ECHR	Human Rights
	Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Ian Simms and Michael Alan Mark O'Brien [1996] EWHC Admin 388
19 Dec 1996 QBD Latham J	Media, Human Rights, Prisons	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A full restriction on the use of material emanating from a prison visit was unlawful as an interference with the right of free speech of the prisoner: "The blanket prohibition on making use of material obtained in a visit is not, on the evidence before me, therefore justified as the minimum interference necessary with the right of free speech to meet the statutory objectives." However the court upheld the need to regulate access by professional journalists acting as such to prisons and prisoners: "There is no doubt that restrictions on visits are necessary for the proper regulation and management of prisons, and for the treatment, discipline and control of inmates. It seems to me to be entirely proper that the primary restriction should be that the only visitors should be family and friends. This accords with the general and beneficial policy to ensure that, so far as possible, an inmate retains his family and social connections. Beyond those categories there has to be some justification, it seems to me, for a visit, in order to ensure that access to inmates is not exploited for purposes which could be inimical to proper management of and discipline within prisons." and "I consider that a restriction preventing an inmate from communicating orally with the media in a visit unless the representative of the media gives an undertaking not to use the material obtained at that visit is a restriction on the right of free speech. . . . The test is whether or not the restriction is necessary in order to achieve the statutory objectives. In the present context, these objectives include the need to keep visits within sensible bounds for the ordinary management of the prison, and the discipline and control of inmates. This clearly entitles rules to be made which preclude access to the media, in any form, merely for the purposes of purveying general complaints, tittle tattle or other material which may be mischievous or offensive. In particular, as was recognised in Bamber, proper discipline and control includes consideration of the effect of inmates' activities on others. I am therefore quite satisfied that Rule 33(1) is lawful in including 'the interests of any persons' as a material consideration when deciding what restrictions are appropriate on communications between inmates and others. It follows, in my view, that the prohibition on communicating with the media by letter save where the inmate is making serious representations about his or her conviction or sentence. or is otherwise part of a serious comment about crime, the processes of justice or the penal system, meets the Leech test of being the minimum interference necessary to achieve the statutory objectives."
	Prison Act 1952 47 - European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted