6 Responsibility, 6.3 Matthews v United Kingdom , ECtHR, App. No. 24833/94, 18 February 1999

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barros Ana Sofia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Community ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Organization ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk

In the present case, the European Court of Human Rights’ analysis drew on the terms in which the European Convention on Human Rights would apply following state adhesion to an international organization. In particular, the Court was called upon to decide on the responsibility of the UK for not having ensured that within the legal system of the then European Community, laws would not be passed that were incompatible with that state’s obligations under the Convention. Although the matter in dispute regarded issues of a purely institutional nature and character, the Court (still) approached it as one engaging state responsibility for its participation in the EC. In a quasi-dogmatic fashion, the Court ascertained that the Convention does not preclude states from transferring competences to international organizations, provided that the rights prescribed therein continue to be secured.

The jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the case of O’Keeffe v. Hickey

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justice Adrian Hardiman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
High Court ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
European Court

The chapter of Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman positions the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the Irish domestic legal system and highlights the political motivations behind the decision to give effect to the Convention in Irish law at a sub-constitutional and interpretive level. The chapter argues that the the principle of subsidiarity is under threat in the decision in O’Keeffe, where, in his view, the Strasbourg Court dramatically expanded its jurisdiction and encroached upon national sovereignty. Mr. Justice Hardiman is particularly concerned that the Strasbourg court entertained a claim that was not presented in the High Court or Supreme Court and that the judgment appeared to merge O’Keeffe’s claims under direct State responsibility and vicarious liability. He argues that this reflects a departure from prior case law for the ECtHR. Mr. Justice Hardiman’s second concern centres on the use by the court of language of ‘objective’, ‘core objective’ and ‘core grievance’, suggesting that use of these terms implies that, at the discretion of the ECtHR, the simple word ‘all’ may mean ‘some’ or even ‘at least one’.

United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-108
Author(s):  
Christian Leuprecht
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Intelligence Community ◽  
State Security ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Accountability System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Uk

The United Kingdom’s intelligence accountability system reviews and oversees the Five Eyes’ oldest intelligence and security community. Her Majesty’s intelligence community illustrates the challenge of managing the tension between state security with human security: a cycle of reform driven in an attempt to (re)gain the trust of a sceptical UK public and in response to technological progression. Over the course of the last century, the UK and its intelligence and security agencies (ISAs) assisted other Five Eyes members in establishing their own ISAs, while its cycle of reform has had equally important ramifications for driving innovation in intelligence accountability across the Five Eyes community. Controversies have undermined the prospect for public trust on which the legitimacy of the UK’s intelligence community ultimately depends. Changes from the initial focus on general administrative and executive review and oversight were driven by domestic and transnational legal challenges. The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have had a notable impact on security and intelligence in the United Kingdom. The chapter reviews the member organizations of the UK’s intelligence community, the strategic environment that has informed intelligence and accountability in the UK, national security threats from the vantage point of the UK, and the UK’s intelligence accountability architecture: the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Judicial Commissioners Office, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Intelligence and Security Committee composed of members of both Houses of Parliament, and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

THE RENAISSANCE OF NON-REFOULEMENT? THE OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 750-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Michaelsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Government ◽  
Control Order ◽  
The Uk

On 17 January 2012 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its judgment in Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom.1 Abu Qatada, a radical Muslim cleric once described as ‘Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe’, was convicted in absentia in Jordan for various terrorist offences.2 He alleges, however, that part of the evidence against him had been obtained under torture. In 1994 he was granted refugee status and permitted to remain in the United Kingdom (UK) temporarily. Qatada later applied for indefinite leave to stay. While his application was pending, he was arrested in October 2002 and detained without charge or trial under the now-repealed Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In March 2005 he was released from detention and put under a ‘control order’ under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. A few months later, the UK government sought to deport Qatada to his native Jordan, having first concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Jordanian government that he would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The deportation order was challenged before English courts, but ultimately upheld by the House of Lords in RB (FC) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department and OO v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2009.3 In contrast, the ECtHR ruled unanimously that the UK could not lawfully deport Qatada to Jordan. The decision was criticized by Home Secretary Theresa May as ‘unacceptable’ and predictably led to several Conservative backbenchers in the House of Commons calling on the government to withdraw from the ECHR.4

The Impact of Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration on United Kingdom Administrative Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 81-122
Author(s):  
Sarah Nason
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Founder Member ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

This chapter explores the impact of the pan-European principles of good administration on the legal system of the United Kingdom. The chapter reveals that whilst the European Convention on Human Rights, and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, have deeply impacted on domestic administrative law, the same cannot be said regarding other sources of the pan-European general principles of good administration. Furthermore, the chapter claims that the UK, as a founder member of the Council of Europe (CoE), sees itself as continuing to provide a degree of critical oversight of the CoE’s system. There is both political and legal resistance to the idea that international norms, such as those developed by the CoE, could provide a template for elements of the domestic legal order. However, the chapter concludes that in a post-Brexit UK the pan-European general principles of good administration may well take on increased significance.

scholarly journals A Vinter retreat in Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Pettigrew
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that domestic procedures for reviewing whole life prison sentences in England and Wales were in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In response, the domestic Court of Appeal declined to revise those procedures, or the material relating to them, and held that the Grand Chamber was incorrect in its finding; the law did in fact give prisoners hope for future release. Rather than reasserting the reasoning and findings of Vinter, the Grand Chamber has been appeased by the clarification offered by the UK court. The contradictions in that retreat from the Vinter judgement are analysed here and the future standing of the court is prophesized in relation to that decision.

The gypsy’s lot: myth and reality

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Jago
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter focuses on the lived experiences of gypsies (collectively referred to as gypsies rather than Roma or travellers). The author argues that the relationship between the legal system and the specific lifestyle of this group is itself causing many tensions which cannot be separated from the long-held myths about gypsies. Jago shows how the standing of gypsies in the UK legal system has, in turn, become the object of various myths. He demonstrates how judgements by the European Court of Human Rights in favour of gypsy claims created in many an image of the law being always on the side of the gypsy. A perception which Jago demonstrates is far from true. After addressing the nature and role of myths in general the author illustrates the tension between positive, romanticised myths about the freedom of gypsy lifestyle and three derogatory myths, namely gypsies as "child-snatchers", as thieves and as "land grabbers". Jago illustrates that these myths are linked to deep-rooted beliefs around property and its ownership.

Handyside v United Kingdom (1979–80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Domestic Law

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights. This case provides an exemplar of the challenges of balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of press regulation. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document