The United Kingdom in Strasbourg – all the Article 10 judgments

10 05 2013

court buildingThe House of Commons Library has published  UK Cases at the European Court of Human Rights since 1975 [pdf] outlining all the cases involving the UK at Strasbourg since 1975, with links to the judgments since September 1997.  Following a request on Twitter by Adam Wagner of the “UK Human Rights Blog” for a breakdown down of the cases by category he had two responses.   There is a Word document from University of Law’s Trevor Jackson and an Excel spreadsheet from David Charlton.

For the assistance of our readers we have extracted the Article 10 cases from Trevor Jackson’s document (and added one which the House of Commons Library Note omitted).  There are twenty two cases listed over a period of nearly 40 years.  The United Kingdom was found to be in breach of Article 10 in eleven of them – that is 50% success rate.  The cases  are as follows:

  • 7 December 1976 Handyside – Seizure of obscene publication (the Little Red Schoolbook). No breach of Articles 10, 14 or 18; no breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1
  • 26 April 1979 Sunday Times – Freedom of expression. Injunction to stop Sunday Times from publishing an article about thalidomide children and settlement of their compensation claims in the UK. Breach of Article 10.  Asked the Commission to direct or request Government to introduce legislation overruling House of Lords decision and bring law of contempt of court into line with the Convention. No breach of Article 14 with Article 10.
  •  7 July 1989 Gaskin – Refusal of access to applicants’ child care records; right to respect for private and family life: breach of Article 8. Right to receive information: no breach of Article 10
  •  26 November 1991 Sunday Times (No.2)Interlocutory injunctions constituted an unjustified interference with freedom of expression: breach of Article 10. No effective remedy before a national authority: no breach of Article 13. Victims of discrimination: no breach of Article 14
  •  26 November 1991 Observer & Guardian – Interlocutory injunctions constituted unjustified interference with freedom of expression: breach of Article 10. No effective remedy before a national authority: no breach of Article 13. Victims of discrimination: no breach of Article 14
  • 28 June 1993 Colman – Policy on advertising in the medical profession and right to freedom of expression (Article 10). No effective remedy (Article 13): friendly settlement
  •  13 July 1995 Tolstoy Miloslavsky – Denial of fair hearing by impartial tribunal and right of access to court: no breach of Article 6.1. Freedom of expression: breach of Article 10
  •  27 March 1996 Goodwin – Journalist fined for not disclosing source of information: breach of Article 10
  • 25 November 1996 Wingrove – Freedom of expression: refusal to grant classification certificate for distribution of video work: no breach of Article 10.
  • 19 February 1998 Bowman – Barring distribution of campaign information before election; right to freedom of expression: breach of Article 10 (Grand Chamber)
  • 9 June 1998 McGinley and Egan – Failure to be warned of effects of exposure to radiation from 1958 nuclear tests. Denied access to own military medical and radiation records compiled following the explosions. Denied access to fair hearing before Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Subjection to harassment and surveillance. Court has no jurisdiction to consider breaches of Articles 2, 3, 6.1,10, 11, 12 (first applicant only), 13 and 14. No breach of Article 8

2 September 1998 Ahmed and Others – Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 deny rights to freedom of expression, assembly and full participation in the electoral process. No breach of Articles 10, 11 or Article 3, Protocol 1

  • 25 November 1999 Hashman and Harrup – Binding over to good behaviour – conduct contra bonos mores (treatment of hunt saboteurs): breach of Article 10
  • 7 May 2002 McVicar – Unavailability of legal aid for defamation actions; exclusion of evidence and requirement that defendant prove allegations: no breach of Articles 6.1 and 10
  • 6 May 2003 Appleby and Others – Refusal of permission to solicit signatures for petition in privately owned shopping mall: no breach of Article 10. Refusal of permission to meet in a privately-owned shopping mall to solicit signatures for petition: no breach of Article 11. Alleged lack of effective remedy: no breach of Article 13
  • 15 February 2005 Steel and Morris – Unavailability of legal aid for defamation actions: breach of Article 6.1; freedom of expression: breach of Article 6.1; freedom of expression: breach of Article 10
  • 19 October 2005 RocheDenied adequate access to a court as a result of the certificate issued by the Secretary of State under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947: no breach of Article 6.1; denied access to a “possession” (a claim in negligence against the MoD) until deprived of it, in an unjustified manner, when the Secretary of State issued the section 10 certificate: no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Section 10 of the 1947 Act was discriminatory: no breach of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1; lack of effective remedy: no breach of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; failure to provide information regarding tests in Portadown to allay fears linked to private and family life: breach of Article 8; right to receive information: no breach of Article 10.
  • 10 March 2009, Times Newspapers – “Internet publication rule”,  claim based on continuing publicationof a newspaper article on the internet.  No violation of Article 10 (Note, this case is omitted from the list in the House of Commons Note)
  • 15 December 2009 Financial Times Ltd – Decision of the High Court to order the applicant journalist to disclose a leaked document violated the right to freedom of expression: breach of Article 10
  • 7 December 2010 MacKay and BBC Scotland – Inability to challenge a court order prohibiting reporting on a criminal trial: breach of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10
  • 18 January 2011 MGN Limited – The Daily Mirror publisher complained of breach of its freedom of expression rights as a result of the national courts’ finding against it for breaching Naomi Campbell’s privacy and ordering payment of success fees agreed between  Ms Campbell and her lawyers in relation to the privacy proceedings. No breach of Article 10 in respect of breach of confidence; breach of Article 10 in respect of the success fees payable by applicant.
  • 22 April 2013 Animal Defenders International – Ban on television or radio advertising by animal-protection organisation on grounds that its objectives were “wholly or mainly of a political nature”: no breach of Article 10 (Grand Chamber).
About these ads

Actions

Information

One response

11 05 2013
peter oakes

When could a British Citizen take a case to Strasbourg ? What year ?

I believe the British Human Rights Act was only introduced to stop UK
Citizens going to Europe That is why the Human Rights act is sterile /
void / impotent / useless / because Article 1 is missing ( the Article that
binds the UK to uphold ECHR and of course Article 13 is missing thus
denying British Citizens of their Human Rights as European Citizens

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,807 other followers

%d bloggers like this: