Human rights and mortgage repossession: beyond property law using Article 8

Legal Studies ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Nield ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Legal Frameworks

Following the Supreme Court decisions in Manchester CC v Pinnock and Hounslow CC v Powell, this article examines the possible impact of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms upon protection of the home in creditor repossession proceedings. The central argument advanced is that, although occupiers may not all be protected through property law, they may enjoy an independent right to respect for their home under Article 8, which should be acknowledged in the legal frameworks governing creditor's enforcement rights against the home. The article suggests that the most common creditor enforcement route, through mortgage repossession proceedings, falls short in this regard. It takes as its primary focus the treatment of children in such proceedings to provide an example of the potential for a human rights-based property protection heralded by these two Supreme Court decisions.

14. Land Law and Human Rights

Land Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 593-629
Author(s):  
Chris Bevan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Land Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Human Rights Discourse ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the relationship between land law and human rights. From a distinctly land law perspective, the human rights discourse has given rise to much debate, which continues to fuel much academic commentary including recent examination of the availability of horizontal effect in McDonald v McDonald in the Supreme Court and in the European Court of Human Rights. The chapter focuses chiefly on the two most pertinent provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for land law; namely Art. 1 of the First Protocol and Art. 8 and reflects on the, at times, difficult relationship between land law and human rights.

scholarly journals ABORTION IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: REFLECTIONS FROM THE UK SUPREME COURT

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-494
Author(s):  
Bríd Ní Ghráinne ◽  
Aisling McMahon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

AbstractOn 7 June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSCt) issued its decision on, inter alia, whether Northern Ireland's near-total abortion ban was compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This article critically assesses the UKSC's treatment of international law in this case. It argues that the UKSCt was justified in finding that Northern Ireland's ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA was a violation of Article 8, but that the majority erred in its assessment of Article 3 ECHR and of the relevance of international law more generally.

Case Comment: Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-604
Author(s):  
Alex Ruck Keene ◽  
Xinyu Xu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract How (if at all) can the right to liberty of a child under Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) be balanced against the rights of parents, enshrined both at common law and under Article 8 ECHR? Is there a limit to the extent to which parents can themselves, or via others, seek to impose restrictions upon their disabled child’s liberty so as to secure their child’s interests? This case considers the answers to these questions given by and the implications of the decision of the Supreme Court in September 2019 in Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42.

scholarly journals Le droit de recours de l'entrepreneur contre l'ingénieur ou l'architecte à la lumière d'arrêts récents de la Cour suprême

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-638
Author(s):  
Thérèse Rousseau-Houle
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
The Relationship

This paper surveys recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the relationship between building contractors and architects or engineers participating in the same project. Normally, the agreement between the owner and the architect or the owner and the engineer vests no rights in the building contractor. The latter may only sue the architect or the engineer on an extra-contractual basis. Proceedings may then take the form of a recursory action, where the contractor, having been held jointly and severally liable towards the owner, attempts to have the architect or engineer take their share of liability. Alternatively, proceedings could be taken on the basis of a delict, in cases where negligence is alleged by the contractor against the architect or engineer. The Supreme Court seems inclined to view the problem from a contract perspective, and to restrict opportunities to sue on the basis of a delict.

scholarly journals (Just) Give Me A Reason …

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 12-35
Author(s):  
Julia Laffranque
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Summary Judgment

Judicial systems often wrestle with whether to sacrifice always presenting thorough judicial reasoning for the sake of an effective leave-to-appeal system. The paper outlines issues of reference to the Luxembourg Court, particularly with regard to Estonian circumstances in light of the ECtHR judgment in Baydar v. the Netherlands. The interplay between EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights in this regard is considered first, along with the importance of giving reasons, courts’ authority, the different roles of domestic and European courts, the duty of referring questions to the CJEU and exemption, consequences of non-referral in EU law, the Strasbourg Court’s role in dialogue between national courts and the CJEU, etc. Examined next are such matters as influences on preliminary references in European Union law, summary reasoning and limits to the reasoning duty (especially with regard to the Ullens de Schooten case of the ECtHR), associated division of competencies between the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts, and finally the reasoning of the ECtHR itself as good or bad example. The author then considers the Supreme Court of Estonia’s leave-to-appeal system and the national courts’ practice in relation to Baydar, concluding that, while reasoned judgments are important and a right, no right exists for the applicant’s case to be referred by a domestic judge to the Luxembourg Court, though it is vital that summary judgment not be arbitrary / manifestly unreasonable; that Estonian courts have made reasonable use of the preliminary reference procedure before the Luxembourg Court thus far; and that they should articulate well the reasoning for referral/non-referral for litigants. The author proposes that the Estonian Supreme Court explain, exceptionally in one refusal of leave to appeal (cf. the Netherlands), that the general requirements for granting leave to appeal cover also the situation of preliminary questions to the CJEU and C.I.L.F.I.T. arguments of the CJEU. Above all, neither the interplay between EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights nor the role of national courts finding their way in complex legal surroundings should be neglected. 

scholarly journals Connecting Supreme Court Decisions, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion: The Case of Lawrence v. Texas

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 209-230
Author(s):  
Mahalley D. Allen ◽  
Donald P. Haider-Markel
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Gay And Lesbian ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions ◽  
The Relationship

Many scholars have examined the relationship between public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court, but most researchers have often failed to take into account the fact that the press mediates this relationship. Due to the public’s lack of independent knowledge about Supreme Court decisions, the media has the potential to play an influential role in the communication and interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. In this article, we examine the relationship between the Supreme Court, the media, and public opinion. First, we examine whether increased public tolerance on gay and lesbian issues has resulted in increased media coverage of gay-related cases before the Supreme Court. Second, we examine how media coverage of the Court’s 2003 decision to strike down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas may have been associated with decreased public support for gay and lesbian civil rights. Our analysis suggests that increased support for gay and lesbian civil rights may have lead to increased media attention to the Lawrence case and that the tone of this coverage may have subsequently resulted in an observed decrease in support for gay and lesbian civil rights following the Court’s decision. We also suggest that the release of a highly critical dissenting opinion by the Court in the case may have encouraged negative media coverage and the resulting shift in public opinion. Our research has broad implications for media coverage of Supreme Court decisions.

scholarly journals PENINJAUAN KEMBALI TERHADAP PUTUSAN PENGADILAN YANG TELAH MEMPEROLEH KEKUATAN HUKUM TETAP DALAM PERKARA PERDATA

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winarno Adi Adi Gunawan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

AbstrakThe peninjauan kembali (revision) under Indonesian procedure law. system isas an extra ordinary efforts to against the supreme court decisions. Revisionis applicable to the permanent decision by involved party that ought tofilling the sue to the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung-Rl). Based on lawnumber 4 year 2004 has stipulated condition on the revision is undercircumstance on any situation under article 23 section 1 which ought tounder law provisions. The author here notes that any possibly impedimentappears will not technically happen in practice later. Oftenly in revisionimplementations the lack or weakness does exist by the applicant side 's. Themostly be deficient in the relevance's legal application to be considered uponSupreme Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document