McCANN, FARRELL AND SAVAGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "McCANN, FARRELL AND SAVAGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM"

Transcription

1 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No /91 by Margaret McCANN, Daniel FARRELL and John SAVAGE against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 September 1993, the following members being present: MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President S. TRECHSEL F. ERMACORA E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK J.-C. SOYER H. DANELIUS Mrs. G.H. THUNE Sir Basil HALL Mr. F. MARTINEZ Mrs. J. LIDDY MM. L. LOUCAIDES M.P. PELLONPÄÄ G.B. REFFI M.A. NOWICKI I. CABRAL BARRETO Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Having regard to the application introduced on 14 August 1991 by Margaret McCANN, Daniel FARRELL and John SAVAGE against the United Kingdom and registered on 24 October 1991 under file No /91; Having regard to: - reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; - the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 11 August 1992 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 14 January 1993; - the parties' submissions at the oral hearing before the Commission on 3 September 1993; Having deliberated; Decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are representatives of the respective estates of Daniel McCann, Mairead Farrell and Sean Savage. They are all citizens of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. They are represented before the Commission by Messrs. P.J. McGrory & Co., solicitors practising in Belfast. The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 6 March 1988, Daniel McCann, Mairead Farrell and Sean Savage were shot and killed in Gibraltar by members of the Special Air Service Seite 1

2 (the "S.A.S.") which is a regiment of the British Army. All three of the victims were members of the Provisional I.R.A. which acknowledged them to have been on "active service" at the time of their deaths. Mairead Farrell had previously been convicted and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment for causing explosions and Daniel McCann had been previously convicted and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment for possession of explosives. At the time that they were killed, the three deceased were unarmed and carried no explosive detonation device. There was also no car bomb present on Gibraltar. An Inquest by the Gibraltar Coroner into the killings was opened on 6 September The families of the deceased (the applicants) were represented, as were the S.A.S soldiers and the United Kingdom Government. Prior to the Inquest, three certificates to the effect that certain information should not, in the public interest, be disclosed, were issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Deputy Governor of Gibraltar, dated respectively 26 August, 30 August and 2 September These stated that the public interest required that the following categories of information be protected from disclosure: 1. In the case of the seven military witnesses, the objection was to the disclosure of any information or documents which would reveal: (i) their identity; (ii) the identity, location, chains of command, method of operation and the capabilities of the units with which the soldiers were serving on 6 March 1988; (iii) the nature of their specialist training or equipment; (iv) the nature of any previous operational activities of the soldiers, or of any units with which any of them might at any time have served; (v) in the case of Soldier "G" (the Ammunition Technical Officer), any defence intelligence information, activities or operations (and the sources of intelligence), including those on the basis of which his assessments were made and details of security forces counter-measures capabilities, including methods of operation, specialist training and equipment. 2. In the case of Security Service witnesses, the objection was to the disclosure of information which would reveal: (a) the identities of members of the Security Service, and details of their deployment, training and equipment; (b) all sources of intelligence information; (c) all details of the activities and operations of the Security Services. As was, however, expressly made clear in the certificates, no objection was taken to the giving of evidence by either military or Security Service witnesses as to: (i) the nature of the information relating to the feared IRA plot, which was transmitted to the Commissioner of Police and others concerned (including general evidence as to the nature of a Provisional IRA Active Service Unit); Seite 2

3 (ii) the assessments made by Soldier "G" as to the likelihood of, and the risks associated with, an explosive device and as to the protective measures which might have to be taken; (iii) the events leading up to the shootings on 6 March 1988 and the circumstances surrounding them, including evidence relating to the transfer of control to the military power. At the Inquest, the applicants argued, inter alia, that the decision to shoot to kill the suspects had been made by the United Kingdom Government prior to the incident and, in any event, the force used was excessive and not justified. United Kingdom security officers gave evidence to the effect that they had received information that a car, driven by suspects over the border from Spain, would be carrying a bomb intended to be detonated at the assembly of the band and other troops for the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Gibraltar on 8 March They had formed the view that it was likely that the bomb would be set off by a remote control device. It was expected that the suspects would be armed. The Commissioner of Gibraltar Police gave evidence to the effect that, after the presence of the three suspects on Gibraltar was confirmed, and he had been informed by soldier G. that the aerial on a parked car did not appear to be an original aerial and might be indicative that there was a bomb in the car, he had decided that the three suspects should be arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder. He signed an order requesting the military to intercept and apprehend the three suspects. This form provided by the military read as follows: "I, Joseph Luis Canepa, Commissioner of Police, having considered the terrorist situation in Gibraltar and having been fully briefed on the military plan with firearms, request that you proceed with the military option which may include the use of lethal force for the preservation of life." The four S.A.S. soldiers involved in the shooting also gave evidence. They stated, inter alia, that they had been following the three suspects with a view to effecting an arrest, that the suspects had appeared to become aware of their presence, that each of the suspects had made a suspicious and/or sudden gesture and that they had shot them to prevent activation of the suspected bomb by remote control. At the conclusion of the Inquest, the Coroner referred the jury to Article 2 of the Gibraltar Constitution: "2.(1) No person shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted. (2) A person shall not be regarded as having been deprived of his life in contravention of this section if he dies as a result of the use to such extent and in such circumstances as are permitted by law, of such force as is reasonably justifiable: a. for the defence of any person from violence or for the defence of property; b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained... d. in order to prevent the commission by that person of a criminal offence." The jury returned verdicts of lawful killing by a majority. Seite 3

4 The applicants were dissatisfied with these verdicts and commenced actions in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Ministry of Defence for the loss and damage suffered by the estate of each deceased as a result of their death. The statements of claim were served on 1 March On 15 March 1990 the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued certificates under Section 40(3)a of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, as amended by the Crown Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order Section 40(2)b of the same Act excludes proceedings in Northern Ireland against the Crown in respect of liability arising otherwise than "in respect of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom". A similar exemption applies to the Crown in Northern Ireland pursuant to the 1981 Order. A certificate by the Secretary of State to that effect is conclusive. The certificates stated in this case that any alleged liability of the Crown arose neither in respect of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, nor in respect of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland. The Ministry of Defence then moved to have the actions struck out. The applicants challenged the legality of the certificates in judicial review proceedings. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted ex parte on 6 July 1990, but withdrawn on 31 May 1991 following a full hearing, on the basis that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. Senior advised that an appeal against this decision would be futile. The applicants' High Court actions were struck off on 4 October COMPLAINTS The applicants, representing the estates of the deceased, claim a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as a result of the killings of 6 March They complain that the three deceased were intentionally deprived of their right to life by the use of unnecessary, unlawful force, without any attempt to effect a lawful arrest. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 14 August 1991 and registered on 24 October On 20 February 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Government's observations were submitted on 11 August 1992 after one extension in the time-limit and the applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 13 January 1993 after two extensions in the time-limit. On 23 October 1992, the Commission decided to grant legal aid to the applicants. On 2 April 1993, the Commission decided to invite the parties to make further submissions at an oral hearing. At the hearing, which was held on 3 September 1993, the Government were represented as follows: Mrs. Audrey Glover Mr. Stephen Richards Mr. James Eadie Mr. Nicholas Lavender Agent Seite 4

5 Mr. David Pickup Adviser, Ministry of Defence Mr. Michael Venables Adviser, Ministry of Defence Mr. David Seymour Adviser, Home Office The applicants were represented as follows: Mr. Douwe Korff Mr. P.J.B. McGrory Mr. Niall Farrell Solicitor Son of the applicant, Mr. Daniel Farrell THE LAW The applicants complain of the killing of the three deceased by the S.A.S on Gibraltar. They invoke Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention which provides as follows: "1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence; b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." The Government submit that the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their complaints, as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, since they failed to institute proceedings for unlawful killings before the Gibraltar courts which had exclusive jurisdiction. They submit that it is incorrect to state that the certificates issued in the proceedings in Northern Ireland barred the applicants' action: they were merely evidential in character. They submit that the courts in Northern Ireland by operation of law did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicants' claims. Proceedings in Gibraltar would however have provided an effective remedy. The applicants cannot be absolved from exhausting this domestic remedy merely on the basis of their ineligibility for legal aid. They have to establish that their financial constraints and other circumstances rendered such a course impossible. The applicants submit that they have complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies imposed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. They were unable to pursue proceedings in the High Court in Northern Ireland since the certificates excluded the jurisdiction of the courts. They contest that their claims necessarily raised matters outside the jurisdiction of the courts in Northern Ireland. Further, they were unable to take proceedings in Gibraltar since they were not eligible for legal aid and had no other means of pursuing such proceedings. The Commission recalls that Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention only requires the exhaustion of such remedies which relate to the breaches of the Convention alleged and at the same time can provide effective and sufficient redress. An applicant does not need to exercise remedies which, although theoretically of a nature to constitute remedies, do not in reality offer any chance of redressing Seite 5

6 the alleged breach. The Commission has held that where, for example, there is a choice of remedies open to an applicant, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position in order to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (cf. No. 9248/81, Dec , D.R. 34 p. 78, and No. 9118/80, Dec , D.R. 32 p. 159). It is furthermore established that the burden of proving the existence of available and sufficient domestic remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (cf. Eur. Court. H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 15, para. 26, and No. 9013/80, Dec , D.R. 30 p. 96, at p. 102). In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicants, as conceded by the Government, would not have been eligible for legal aid in Gibraltar. The Commission finds that they have insufficient means to pay for legal representation themselves. In this context the Commission recalls that they were found eligible under the financial criteria for legal aid in Northern Ireland and before the Commission itself. Having regard, in addition, to the difficulties imposed by the distance and the difficulty and complexity of the factual and legal issues which would have been raised in proceedings in Gibraltar, the applicants could not have proceeded without legal representation. Consequently, the Commission finds that the remedy cannot realistically have been available to the applicants in this case. Further, the Commission finds that the applicants' choice of pursuing proceedings in the courts of Northern Ireland was not unreasonable or without basis in domestic law. The applicants in those proceedings (in respect of which they were granted legal aid by the relevant domestic authorities) intended, inter alia, to argue that liability arose out of the actions of Crown agents based in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The certificates issued by the Secretary of State were however conclusive of the fact that the alleged liability did not arise in respect of the Government in the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland and effectively put an end to the proceedings. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. As regards the substance of the case, the applicants submit that there has been a violation of Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention in respect of the shooting of the three deceased persons. They consider that Article 2 (Art. 2) imposes a duty on States to adopt clear and detailed legal rules on the use of lethal force, which strictly control and limit that use. They consider that United Kingdom law is vague and general and therefore is in itself in violation of this provision. They submit that Article 2 (Art. 2) requires, in addition, that States exercise strict operational control over the use of lethal force, including the giving of appropriate training, briefings and instructions. They contend that soldiers are trained to shoot to kill without warning and that the operation in Gibraltar was neither planned nor executed in such a way as to minimise the need for the use of lethal force. They point to the fact that the soldiers were apparently made to believe (wrongly) firstly, that the suspects were armed; secondly, that there was a car bomb in place; and thirdly, that the bomb could be detonated by the suspects by means of a remote control device. The applicants further submit that Article 2 (Art. 2) should be interpreted as including a procedural element, namely, the provision of an effective procedure after a lethal shooting for establishing the facts. They complain that the Inquest was inadequate, inter alia, as public interest certificates were used to block crucial evidence. They allege that there had been a lack of diligence in seeking out witnesses Seite 6

7 and attempts made to intimidate and discredit those who did come forward. The Government submit that specific protection of life is provided by the Gibraltar Constitution and that this is in conformity with the standards imposed by Article 2 (Art. 2). They point out that the jury on consideration of the evidence found that the killings were lawful. They contend that it is implicit from that finding that the jury considered that there had been no plot to kill the deceased terrorists, that the soldiers had honestly and reasonably believed that there was a car bomb which could be detonated by remote control and that the degree of force used by the soldiers was proportionate to the aim of protecting the lives of the people of Gibraltar. As regards the Inquest proceedings, the Government submit that it provided an exhaustive fact-finding investigation by an independent body. In particular, they highlight the fact that 78 witnesses (including the S.A.S soldiers and Security Service personnel involved in the incident) were extensively examined and cross-examined by the legal representatives of the applicants, that the Inquest was held within six months of the incident, that the applicants' representatives made no challenge to the public immunity certificates, and that the Coroner exercised his discretion to allow certain questions, despite objection by the Crown on the basis of the certificates. The Commission considers that the applicants' complaints under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention raise complex issues of fact and law, the determination of which should depend on the merits. The application must therefore be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established. For these reasons, the Commission by a majority DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case. Secretary to the Commission (H.C. KRUGER) President of the Commission (C.A. NØRGAARD) Seite 7

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 12945/87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 April 1990, the following members being

More information

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members being present:

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members being present: AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16152/90 by Ahmed LAMGUINDAZ against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members

More information

FISCHER v. AUSTRIA. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members being present:

FISCHER v. AUSTRIA. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members being present: FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16922/90 by Josef FISCHER against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Kevin MCDAID and Others against the United Kingdom

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Kevin MCDAID and Others against the United Kingdom AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 25681/94 by Kevin MCDAID and Others against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 April 1996, the following members

More information

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present: AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16400/90 by H.S. and H.Y. against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13057/87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 March 1989, the following members being present: MM.

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by M.T.J. against Denmark

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by M.T.J. against Denmark AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 19011/91 by M.T.J. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:

More information

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 May 1986, the following members being present: MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President C. A. NØRGAARD G. SPERDUTI M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES G. JÖRUNDSSON

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28858/95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 November 1996, the following members being present:

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28268/95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:

More information

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark 1 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 May 1988, the following members

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28288/95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members

More information

E. Recapitulation (paras )... 12

E. Recapitulation (paras )... 12 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18892/91 Wilhelm Putz against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 11 October 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)......................1

More information

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present: AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 17392/90 by W.M. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present: MM. S. TRECHSEL,

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /91. Anders Fredin. against. Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 9 February 1993)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /91. Anders Fredin. against. Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 9 February 1993) EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18928/91 Anders Fredin against Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 9 February 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)..................1

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. Application No /84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. Application No /84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY Application No. 10825/84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 July 1987, the following members being present:

More information

THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4860/02 by Julija LEPARSKIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 November 2007 as a Chamber

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 22838/93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following

More information

Seite 1 von 10 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 24208/94 by Karlheinz DEMEL against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /91. Wiktor Olesen. against. Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /91. Wiktor Olesen. against. Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 18068/91 Wiktor Olesen against Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 18 October 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras.

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /93. James Hamill. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /93. James Hamill. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 21656/93 James Hamill against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 2 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-18)

More information

Seite 1 von 10 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST CHAMBER Application No. 25629/94 H.F. K-F. against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 10 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 33029/96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 October 1998, the following members being

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 29188/95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13445/87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1991, the following members being present:

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 18714/91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1994 the following members being

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /92. Zoltán Szücs. against. Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 3 September 1996)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /92. Zoltán Szücs. against. Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 3 September 1996) EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 20602/92 Zoltán Szücs against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-15)......................1

More information

FRIEDL_v._AUSTRIA[1] Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-9)...

FRIEDL_v._AUSTRIA[1] Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-9)... EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15225/89 Ludwig Friedl against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)......................

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 27033/95 by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 November 1996, the following members

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 23959/94 Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 31 May 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION

More information

Application Nos /88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS. against IRELAND

Application Nos /88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS. against IRELAND Application Nos. 14234/88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS against IRELAND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 7 March 1991) TABLE OF CONTENTS page

More information

THIRD SECTION DECISION

THIRD SECTION DECISION THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37204/02 Ludmila Yakovlevna GUSAR against the Republic of Moldova and Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Chamber

More information

Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-27) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-22)... 1

Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-27) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-22)... 1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15318/89 Titina Loizidou against Turkey REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 8 July 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-27).......................

More information

Module 1 Use of Force

Module 1 Use of Force Module 1 Use of Force Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Use of Force Section 3: Human Rights Act 1998 Aims: Describe the theories and principles of use of force in relation to operational safety. Learning

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /86 by Verein "Kontakt-Information-Therapie" (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /86 by Verein Kontakt-Information-Therapie (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 11921/86 by Verein "Kontakt-Information-Therapie" (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 October

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 25062/94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the following members being

More information

Counter-Terrorism Bill

Counter-Terrorism Bill EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Home Office, will be published separately as HL Bill 6 EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Lord West of Spithead has made the following

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 36773/97 by Herwig NACHTMANN against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 September 1998, the following members

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /94. Józef Michal Janowski. against. Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /94. Józef Michal Janowski. against. Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 25716/94 Józef Michal Janowski against Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION

More information

THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9

THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9 THE ANTHONY GRAINGER INQUIRY OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF Q9 1. On Saturday 3 March 2012 Q9, a highly trained specialist and experienced firearms officer, shot and killed Anthony Grainger during a pre-planned

More information

FIFTH SECTION DECISION

FIFTH SECTION DECISION FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17707/10 Gráinne NIC GIBB against Ireland The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 March 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President,

More information

VIEWS. Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/47/D/282/ May Original: ENGLISH. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-seventh session

VIEWS. Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/47/D/282/ May Original: ENGLISH. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-seventh session Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/47/D/282/1988 12 May 1993 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-seventh session VIEWS Communication No. 282/1988 Submitted by: Leaford Smith [represented by counsel]

More information

JUDGMENT. In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)

JUDGMENT. In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) Hilary Term [2019] UKSC 9 On appeal from: [2015] NICA 66 JUDGMENT In the matter of an application by Hugh Jordan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) before Lady Hale, President Lord Reed, Deputy President

More information

investigation and that there were no proposals for an effective investigation in the very cases that were the subject of those judgments.

investigation and that there were no proposals for an effective investigation in the very cases that were the subject of those judgments. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Response to the proposed Coroners (Practice and Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2002 January 2002 The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is

More information

FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 46553/99 by S.C.C. against Sweden

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /96. Ian Faulkner. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /96. Ian Faulkner. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 30308/96 Ian Faulkner against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 1 December 1998) 30308/96 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION

More information

DECISIONS. Communication No. 255/1987. [represented by counsel]

DECISIONS. Communication No. 255/1987. [represented by counsel] Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/46/D/255/1987 2 November 1992 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Forty-sixth session DECISIONS Communication No. 255/1987 Submitted by : Alleged victim : State party :

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 26249/95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 28 February 1996, the following

More information

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS In the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (1),

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS In the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (1), EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS In the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, pursuant to Rule 51 of Rules of Court A (2), as a Grand Chamber composed

More information

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Seite 1

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Seite 1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 13126/87 Karl SEKANINA against AUSTRIA REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 20 May 1992) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)..................1

More information

COURT (GRAND CHAMBER) (Application no /91) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 September 1995

COURT (GRAND CHAMBER) (Application no /91) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 September 1995 Mr J. M, COURT (GRAND CHAMBER) CASE OF McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 18984/91) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 September 1995 In the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom [1],

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 31414/96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1998, the following members being

More information

Date of communication: 5 February 1987 (date of initial letter)

Date of communication: 5 February 1987 (date of initial letter) HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Robinson v. Jamaica Communication No. 223/1987 30 March 1989 VIEWS Submitted by: Frank Robinson Alleged victim: The author State party concerned: Jamaica Date of communication: 5

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28212/95) JUDGMENT

More information

Northern Ireland. Provisions) Act. (Emergency LONDON: HMSO CHAPTER 22

Northern Ireland. Provisions) Act. (Emergency LONDON: HMSO CHAPTER 22 Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 CHAPTER 22 LONDON: HMSO Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 CHAPTER 22 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I SCHEDULED OFFENCES The scheduled offences

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 50230/99 by Ari LAUKKANEN

More information

Clements: Q&A Public Law. Chapter 7: The Human Rights Act 1998

Clements: Q&A Public Law. Chapter 7: The Human Rights Act 1998 Chapter 7: The Human Rights Act 1998 Chapter 1: The response to terrorism has been at a considerable cost to traditional liberties formally protected by the common law, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act

More information

Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016

Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 CHAPTER 4 10.00 Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 CHAPTER 4 CONTENTS PART 1 THE NORTHERN IRELAND PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN 1.

More information

James Hamilton, Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Conference 15 July 2008, Dublin

James Hamilton, Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Conference 15 July 2008, Dublin A SINGLE OFFENCE OF UNLAWFUL KILLING? Ever since the abolition of the death penalty as a punishment for murder, arguments have arisen in favour of merging the offences of murder and manslaughter into a

More information

Part of the requirement for a criminal offence. It is the guilty act.

Part of the requirement for a criminal offence. It is the guilty act. Level 1 Award/Certificate/Diploma in Legal Studies Glossary of Terms Term Action Actus reus Barrister Breach of duty of care Case law Chartered Legal Executive Civil law Claimant Common law compensation

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF ASCH v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 12398/86) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 April

More information

Northern Ireland Statistics on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000: Annual Statistics 2003

Northern Ireland Statistics on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000: Annual Statistics 2003 Statistics and Research Branch Northern Ireland Statistics on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000: Annual Statistics Research and Statistical Bulletin 3/2004 D Lyness and M Carmichael TERRORISM ACT

More information

VIEWS. Communication No. 332/1988

VIEWS. Communication No. 332/1988 UNITED NATIONS CCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr. RESTRICTED* CCPR/C/50/D/332/1988 5 April 1994 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Fiftieth session VIEWS Communication

More information

DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 29759/96 by Nikola KITOV against Denmark The

More information

PSNI Manual of Policy, Procedure and Guidance on Conflict Management. Chapter 1: Legal Basis and Human Rights PB 4/13 18 RESTRICTED

PSNI Manual of Policy, Procedure and Guidance on Conflict Management. Chapter 1: Legal Basis and Human Rights PB 4/13 18 RESTRICTED Chapter 1: Legal Basis and Human Rights PB 4/13 18 Chapter 1 PSNI Manual of Policy, Procedure and Guidance on Conflict Management Legal Basis and Human Rights Page No Introduction 20 Context 20 Police

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BECK v. NORWAY. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BECK v. NORWAY. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BECK v. NORWAY (Application no. 26390/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 June 2001

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW) Gribben s (Sally) Application [2012] NIQB 81

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW) Gribben s (Sally) Application [2012] NIQB 81 Neutral Citation No. [2012] NIQB 81 Ref: WEA8633 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 18/10/2012 THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)

More information

Francis McGrath Essex Street London WC2R 3AA General Crime

Francis McGrath Essex Street London WC2R 3AA General Crime General Crime Francis has conducted a range of cases across the entire spectrum of criminal offences, either as a leading junior or junior alone. Recent case include allegations of homicide, serious sexual

More information

LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69

LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69 LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69 NEW SOUTH WALES. TABLt OF PROVISIONS. J. Short title. 2. Commencement. 3. Interpretation. 4. Act to bind the Crown. PART I. PRELIMINARY. PART II. OFFENCES RELATING TO

More information

The Protection of Freedoms Bill

The Protection of Freedoms Bill The Protection of Freedoms Bill The Protection of Freedoms Bill deals with a wide variety of areas. It includes provisions on retention of DNA and fingerprints by the police, use of biometrics by schools,

More information

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2019

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2019 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 January 2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.

More information

Having deliberated, makes the following findings and recommendations:

Having deliberated, makes the following findings and recommendations: OPINION Date of adoption: 26 November 2010 Case No. 02/08 Nexhmedin SPAHIU against UNMIK The Human Rights Advisory Panel sitting on 26 November 2010 with the following members present: Mr Marek NOWICKI,

More information

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of

More information

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Draft statutory guidance on the making or renewing of national security determinations allowing the retention of biometric data March 2013 Issued Pursuant to Section 22

More information

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /85 by the Ingrid Jordebo FOUNDATION of Christian Schools and Ingrid JORDEBO against Sweden

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /85 by the Ingrid Jordebo FOUNDATION of Christian Schools and Ingrid JORDEBO against Sweden AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 11533/85 by the Ingrid Jordebo FOUNDATION of Christian Schools and Ingrid JORDEBO against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

More information

The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (incorporating The Patent Regulation Board and the Trade Mark Regulation Board)

The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (incorporating The Patent Regulation Board and the Trade Mark Regulation Board) The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (incorporating The Patent Regulation Board and the Trade Mark Regulation Board) Final Draft Disciplinary Procedure Rules The Patent Regulation Board of the Chartered

More information

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA (Application no. 32163/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUŠKO v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the

More information

Decision adopted by the Committee at its fifty-second session, 28 April 23 May Sergei Kirsanov (not represented by counsel)

Decision adopted by the Committee at its fifty-second session, 28 April 23 May Sergei Kirsanov (not represented by counsel) United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 19 June 2014 CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 Original: English Committee against Torture Communication

More information

Seite 1 von 8 In the case of Mauer v. Austria (1), The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

More information

THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED

THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED A REVIEW OF THE LAW IN NORTHERN IRELAND November 2004 ISBN 1 903681 50 2 Copyright Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Temple Court, 39 North Street Belfast

More information

!! # % & #! %()) ) +,)

!! # % & #! %()) ) +,) !! # % & #! %()) ) +,) COMMENT Private Defence and Public Defence in the Criminal Law and in the Law of Tort A Comparison Simon Parsons and Benjamin Andoh* Keywords Self-defence; Prevention of crime; Honest

More information

THIRD SECTION DECISION

THIRD SECTION DECISION THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 37187/03 and 18577/08 Iaroslav SARUPICI against the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine and Anatolie GANEA and Aurelia GHERSCOVICI against the Republic of Moldova The

More information

VIEWS. Communication No. 333/1988

VIEWS. Communication No. 333/1988 UNITED NATIONS CCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr. RESTRICTED* 25 March 1994 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Fiftieth session VIEWS Communication No. 333/1988 Submitted

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28923/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF LAGERBLOM v. SWEDEN (Application no. 26891/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 January

More information

CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND

CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND This Code will be made available free on request in accessible formats such as in Braille,

More information

SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38986/97 by P. W. against Denmark

More information

THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF application no. 34311/96 by Adolf HUBNER against

More information

Coroners and Justice Bill

Coroners and Justice Bill Coroners and Justice Bill Suggested amendments for Committee Stage House of Commons February 2009 For further information contact Sally Ireland, Senior Legal Officer (Criminal Justice) E-mail: sireland@justice.org.uk

More information

Code of Administrative Justice

Code of Administrative Justice Act No. 150/2002 Coll., Code of Administrative Justice as amended by Act. No. 192/2003 Coll., Act. No. 22/2004 Coll., Act No. 235/2004 Coll., with effect from May 1, 2004 The Parliament has adopted the

More information

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights VIEWS Communication No. 1278/2004

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights VIEWS Communication No. 1278/2004 United Nations CCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr. RESTRICTED * CCPR/C/95/D/1278/2004 23 April 2009 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Ninety fifth session 16 March 3

More information

House of Commons NOTICES OF AMENDMENTS. given up to and including. Tuesday 26 June 2018

House of Commons NOTICES OF AMENDMENTS. given up to and including. Tuesday 26 June 2018 1 House of Commons NOTICES OF AMENDMENTS given up to and including 2018 New Amendments handed in are marked thus Amendments which will comply with the required notice period at their next appearance PUBLIC

More information

POLICE POWERS IN THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM. Professor Richard Stone. Lincoln Law School

POLICE POWERS IN THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM. Professor Richard Stone. Lincoln Law School POLICE POWERS IN THE CONTEXT OF TERRORISM Professor Richard Stone Lincoln Law School Abstract This article looks at the modification of police powers in the context of terrorist threats, and the safeguards

More information

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK. (Application no.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK. (Application no. CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF OHLEN v. DENMARK (Application no. 63214/00) JUDGMENT (Striking out) STRASBOURG

More information

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL] [AS AMENDED IN STANDING COMMITTEE E] CONTENTS PART 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC Amendments to Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 1 Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence 2 Additional considerations

More information

A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] /05 Judgment [GC]

A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] /05 Judgment [GC] Information Note on the Court s case-law No. 116 February 2009 A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 3455/05 Judgment 19.2.2009 [GC] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Expulsion Extradition Indefinite detention

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW) Gribben s (Sally) Application [2015] NIQB 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW) Gribben s (Sally) Application [2015] NIQB 27 Neutral Citation No. [2015] NIQB 27 Ref: WEA9537 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 03/02/2015 (subject to editorial corrections)* WEATHERUP J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN

More information

FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32307/96 by Hans Jorg SCHIMANEK against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting on 1 February 2000 as a Chamber

More information

FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 31821/96 by Halima Musa ISSA,

More information