The Implications of the ASLEF Case

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in ASLEFv United Kingdom (27 February 2007) will require the governmentto re-visit the law relating to the right of trade unions toexclude and expel individuals because of their membership ofpolitical organisations perceived by trade unions to be hostileto their interests. It is now clear—as was pointed outat the time—that the changes made by the Employment RelationsAct 2004 do not go far enough to meet obligations under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the casealso raises much wider questions about the compatibility ofother statutory restraints on trade union autonomy with Article11 of the ECHR, notably ss 64–67 (on unjustifiable discipline)and 174–177 (on exclusion and expulsion as a whole, andnot only the measures relating to membership of hostile politicalparties). This article considers both the immediate and thewider implications of the ASLEF decision for British trade unionlaw, in the context of what appears to be a greater willingnessof the Strasbourg Court to listen more carefully to trade uniongrievances than in the past. The article also draws attentionto the role of litigation as a trade union strategy to recoverlost rights, and again emphasises the importance of InternationalLabour Organisation Convention 87 and the Council of Europe'sSocial Charter of 1961 (as well as the jurisprudence thereunder)as important sources in the construction of the ECHR, Article11.     

The University of Barchester,Coketown University,Ipswich Cathedral Choir School,Gas Street Comprehensive School and the European Convention on Human Rights: A link?

This article focuses on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and especially Article 6 entitled Right to a Fair and Public Hearing , all now fully incorporated into the UK via the Human Rights Act (HRA, 1997). This article discusses the implications for UK education institutions and the potential conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Visitor in English chartered universities and colleges. Also discussed are UK schools, colleges and universities as 'public authorities' and 'emanations of the state', the creation of a Higher Education Ombudsman as a 'Super-Visitor' or 'HERO' (Higher Education Regulatory Office), the impact of HRA and ECHR less dramatic for schools than for universities (or at least for the Visitor function within them), and finally the coming three decades of legal uncertainty and fees for lawyers.     

Taking Care of Strasbourg: The Status of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights in Kosovo’s Domestic Legal System

This paper addresses the position of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law in Kosovo’s domestic legal order. To begin with, it reviews the background of the issue of human rights in Kosovo highlighting its distinct position and perspective. This article then analyses the position held by the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols in Kosovo’s legal order while also addressing the ECHR’s constitutionalization, its direct effect and the constitutional review on basis of it. The paper then examines whether the case-law of the ECtHR is binding in Kosovo, whether it is directly effective, and whether Kosovo’s Constitutional Court can use it as a ground in the conduct of constitutional reviews. This paper argues that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR both hold a privileged status under Kosovo’s constitutional law, despite Kosovo not being a party to the ECHR and, therefore, having no international liability to implement the ECHR. In addition, the paper offers certain arguments regarding the relative positions of the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR within the current practice of Kosovo’s judicial system. This paper concludes with the argument that the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR hold a privileged status in the context of Kosovo’s domestic legal order—one which could serve as a precedent in respecting human rights and freedoms.     

EU Accession to the ECHR: Between Autonomy and Adaptation

After the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights the EU will become subject to legally binding judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and participate in statutory bodies of the Council of Europe (Parliamentary Assembly; Committee of Ministers) when they act under the Convention. Convention rights and their interpretation by the ECtHR will be directly enforceable against the EU institutions and against Member States when acting within the scope of EU law. This will vest the ECHR with additional force in a number of Member States, including Germany and the UK. All Member States will further be subject to additional constraints when acting under the Convention system. The article considers the reasons for, and consequences of the EU's primus inter pares position under the Convention and within the Council of Europe, and the likely practical effect of the EU's accession for its Member States.     

Regulating surrogacy--a contravention of human rights?

On the 2nd of October 2000, The Human Rights Act 1998 came into full force, signalling the incorporation of The European Convention on Human Rights into U.K. law. Areas of law believed to be inconsistent with the Convention may now be challenged in both The European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts. This article considers whether existing laws on the regulation of access to infertility services, in particular surrogacy, will be deemed incompatible with the ECHR. Human rights as enshrined within Articles 8 and 12 will be examined in light of recent suggestions that there may arise legal challenges by those who have had access to reproductive services restricted or denied. It will be shown that, although existing and potential future controls may arguably infringe these rights, it is nevertheless unlikely that they will be held to be in contravention of The Human Rights Act 1998.     

The future of claims to resist removal by non-nationals suffering from HIV/AIDS

The focus of this article is to consider the difficulties facing non-nationals suffering HIV/AIDS to resist removal to their countries of origin where there is no or inadequate medical treatment. The link between HIV/AIDS and migration will be explored illustrating the vulnerability of displaced people to the virus. The current UK legal position for those attempting to resist removal in such circumstances will be explored. The article will explore two potential avenues that may prevent removal of non-nationals with HIV/AIDS to countries with limited access to the necessary treatment. In the first instance consideration of Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will be made with particular emphasis on mother and child claims. The second argument will examine the potential for refugee claims under Article 1A (2) Refugee Convention 1951 where an applicant may be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution because of membership to a particular social group. The authors will particularly emphasise the argument that in certain countries sufferers will experience ostracism and victimisation where its severity may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and persecution under the Refugee Convention. Vanessa Bettinson and Dr Alwyn Jones, senior lecturers, De Montfort University. The authors would like to thank Professor Tony Barnett at London School of Economics for his useful and invaluable thoughts and comments. We would also like to thank our colleague Gavin Dingwall and the students in our 2006/07 Immigration and Refugee Law seminars for their very helpful feedback.     

UNDERSTANDING CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: THEORY AND PRACTICE

This article discusses the meaning of children's rights in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Both place primary responsibility for the upbringing and education of children on their parents and families. The freedom of parents to bring up their children in their own way is an important component of a liberal democracy founded on respect for individual differences. So if parents believe in moderate corporal punishment as a means of educating their children in their own religious beliefs, is the state justified in banning such punishment either in school or in the home in order to protect the children's rights? This article discusses the children's rights which are protected by doing so.     

Homosexuality and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: What Can Be Learned from the History of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Despite differences between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) in terms of the substantive rights guaranteed and machineries to enforce them, both instruments have been foundational in the establishment of organizations that share a common history of rejecting human rights complaints from homosexuals. Although the contemporary jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on homosexuality may contrast sharply with that of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACtHPR) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACmHPR) – because the ACtHPR and ACmHPR have never upheld a complaint relating to sexual orientation – the early history of the ECtHR and the former European Commission on Human Rights (ECmHR) mirrors the current African stance. This article explores what those seeking to develop gay and lesbian rights in Africa might usefully learn from the historical evolution of similar rights under the ECHR.     

Trade marks are 'possessions'--but applications are not (yet)

In its decision of 11 October 2005 the European Court of HumanRights (ECHR) ruled that a registered trade mark was a ‘possession’within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Protocol to theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR failed, however,to extend this level of protection to the particular trade markapplication at issue, thereby leaving the protection of intellectualproperty rights as fundamental rights somewhat incomplete forthe time being.     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

‘Notice and staydown’ and social media: amending Article 13 of the Proposed Directive on Copyright

ABSTRACT

This paper critically assesses the compatibility of content recognition and filtering technology or so-called notice and staydown approach with the right of social network platforms and users to a fair trial, privacy and freedom of expression under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Article 13 of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright, the case-law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Court and academic literature. It argues that the adoption of content recognition and filtering technology could pose a threat to social network platforms and user human rights. It considers the compliance of ‘notice and staydown’ with the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether a ‘notice and staydown’ approach is, firstly, ‘in accordance with the law’, secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims included in Article 8(2) and 10(2) ECHR and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. It concludes that ‘notice and staydown’ could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR test as well as the ECtHR principle of equality of arms, thereby violating the rights of social network platforms and users under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.     

Inhuman and Degrading Punishment,Dignity, and the Limits of Retribution

The recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Vinter and others v United Kingdom provides a much needed clarification of the parameters of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as it applies to whole life orders of imprisonment under mandatory life sentences – essentially, life imprisonment without parole. The Grand Chamber's judgment refines Strasbourg doctrine on life imprisonment and the prospect of release and illuminates key principles concerning inhuman and degrading punishment under Article 3 of the ECHR. This article considers the judgment's profound significance in relation to both human rights and penology.     

The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Criminal Suspect

In In re JR38, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a 14 year‐old boy who argued that the dissemination of his image, taken whilst he was participating in sectarian rioting, to local newspapers, violated his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Court was divided on whether or not the measures taken by the police engaged the applicant's Article 8(1) rights at all. This case raises fundamental questions as to the scope of private life in the context of criminal investigations, and the place of the European Court of Human Rights’ ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test in determining whether Article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged. This case comment subjects the majority's interpretation of Article 8(1) to critical scrutiny, concluding that this interpretation may unduly restrict the scope of Article 8 protection for those subject to criminal investigations.     

Protecting mental health clients' dignity — The importance of legal control

Protecting human beings' dignity is a fundamental value underlying the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as several recommendations and conventions derived from this, among them the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), a declaration that also takes precedence over Norwegian legislation. Still, clients' stories inform us that their dignity is not always protected in the mental health service systems.The aim of the study has been to investigate violations of dignity considered from the clients' points of view, and to suggest actions that may ensure that practice is brought in line with human rights values.The method used has been a qualitative content analysis of 335 client narratives.The conclusion is that mental health clients experience infringements that cannot be explained without reference to their status as clients in a system which, based on judgments from medical experts, has a legitimate right to ignore clients' voices as well as their fundamental human rights. The main focus of this discussion is the role of the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights as instruments for protecting mental health clients' human rights. To bring about changes, recommendations and practices should be harmonized with the new UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Under this convention, the European Court of Human Rights has support for the application of the ECHR without exemptions for special groups of people.     

Balancing data protection and privacy – The case of information security sensor systems

This article analyses government deployment of information security sensor systems from primarily a European human rights perspective. Sensor systems are designed to detect attacks against information networks by analysing network traffic and comparing this traffic to known attack-vectors, suspicious traffic profiles or content, while also recording attacks and providing information for the prevention of future attacks. The article examines how these sensor systems may be one way of ensuring the necessary protection of personal data stored in government IT-systems, helping governments fulfil positive obligations with regards to data protection under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (The Charter), as well as data protection and IT-security requirements established in EU-secondary law. It concludes that the implementation of sensor systems illustrates the need to balance data protection against the negative privacy obligations of the state under the ECHR and the Charter and the accompanying need to ensure that surveillance of communications and associated metadata reach established principles of legality and proportionality. The article highlights the difficulty in balancing these positive and negative obligations, makes recommendations on the scope of such sensor systems and the legal safeguards surrounding them to ensure compliance with European human rights law and concludes that there is a risk of privatised policymaking in this field barring further guidance in EU-secondary law or case law.     

An Equality and Human Rights Commission Worthy of the Name

The Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force on 2 October 2000, enabling the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be relied on directly in our domestic courts.¹ The Act lacked provision for a Human Rights Commission to advise and assist alleged victims in bringing proceedings for breaches of Convention rights, to research, intervene in court proceedings, and promote a culture of human rights, although such a Commission had been created for Northern Ireland. A White Paper has now been issued outlining plans for a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. This paper considers the future role and potential impact of the Commission and highlights opportunities that have been missed since October 2000 in its absence. We focus on its human rights aspects and summarize key conditions for the new Commission's success.     

Trade marks are 'possessions', as are applications

In a landmark judgment, the Grand Chamber of the European Courtof Human Rights (ECHR) partially reversed an earlier decisionof the Second Section of that Court of October 2005 and extendedthe protection of fundamental property rights under Article1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rightsto trade mark applications.     

Taking the Rights of Parents and Children Seriously: Confronting the Welfare Principle under the Human Rights Act

This article argues that resistance to the Human Rights Acthas built up in the context of disputes relating to childrenand that such resistance is founded in the attachment of thecourts to the welfare or paramountcy principle as currentlyconceived—the principle that the child’s welfareautomatically prevails over the rights of other family members.It argues that the failure to take account of Convention argumentscould only be a legitimate stance if there was no conflict betweenthe demands of the welfare principle and those of the Conventionguarantees, but that in fact the approach of the European Courtof Human Rights differs considerably from that of the UK courtssince it seeks to balance the rights of different family members.The article goes on to argue that, taking account of the Strasbourgstance and of the already established domestic recognition ofthe presumptive equality of competing qualified Convention rights,it is time to accept the adoption of a new model of judicialreasoning in the context of disputes over children—the‘parallel analysis’ or ‘ultimate balancingact’.     

Secularism before the Strasbourg Court: Abstract Constitutional Principles as a Basis for Limiting Rights

The justification for the restrictions on religion inherent in secularism is the subject of lively debate in constitutional and political theory. As a rights‐focused text, the ECHR struggles to accommodate constitutional principles such as secularism whose aims and justifications may go beyond the protection of the rights of others and include abstract goals such as upholding the religious neutrality of the state. Rights alone cannot provide an adequate account of the relationship between religion, state and law, and in Ebrahimian v France, the Strasbourg Court rightly reaffirmed that secularism and strict neutrality can be in harmony with the values of the Convention. However, the Court needs more clarity about the reasons for this stance and to be vigilant in its protection of private autonomy so that the use of abstract principles to restrict religious expression does not give excessive latitude to states to restrict individual autonomy and minority rights.     

EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?

This article aims to map some of the major implications forasylum–related law in Europe of the Refugee QualificationDirective, which twenty-four EU Member States were requiredto implement by 10 October 2006. It seeks to build on importantstudies of the Directive completed by, among others, Hemme Battjes,in his book European Asylum Law and International Law, Nijhoff2006, and Jane McAdam, in her book Complementary Protectionin International Refugee Law, OUP 2007, albeit it takes a differentview of some key questions. Part 2 deals with the impact of the Directive on the applicationand interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967Protocol. It is argued that, even read simply as a set of provisionsgiving interpretive guidelines on the application of the RefugeeConvention, it affects many things concerned with refugee eligibility,since these provisions cover key elements of the refugee definition. Part 3 deals with the impact of the Directive on the asylum-relatedhuman rights jurisdiction that currently prevails in Europein one form or another.¹ It is argued that the effect of theDirective is and must be to render Article 3 ECHR protection– or its domestic equivalent – a largely residualcategory, save in exclusion cases. Part 4 addresses to what extent, if at all, the Directive containsmandatory provisions and how, post-implementation, these canbe integrated into the national law of Member States. It isargued that, considered in purely textual terms, the key definitionaland interpretive provisions of the Directive are mostly in mandatoryform. Further, that whilst, by virtue of being a minimum standardsdirective, the Directive allows Member States to introduce orretain more favourable standards (A3), the same article stipulatesthat such standards must be compatible with the Directive. Thatproviso is of some importance given that the Directive’spreamble (at R7) identifies as one objective the avoidance ofsecondary movements. In relation to articles of the Directivewhich specify in mandatory terms how elements of the refugeedefinition are to be applied, Member States cannot be free tointroduce or retain differing standards. Parts 5 and 6 analyse suggested differences, first, betweenthe Directive’s refugee definition and the Refugee Convention(it is argued that the only potential difference of real significanceconcerns the Directive’s rendering of the Article 1F exclusionclauses of the Refugee Convention) and, secondly, between theDirective’s subsidiary protection definition and Article3 ECHR. The extent of symmetry between the new subsidiary protectioncriteria and ECHR protection under Article 3 is explored, inparticular, arguing that, whilst there are three respects inwhich subsidiary protection criteria are narrower (relatingto personal scope; the existence of cessation and exclusionclauses; and limited application to ‘health cases’),there may be limited respects in which it may be broader inscope than Article 3 ECHR. Part 7 examines patterns of implementation in the light of earlyevidence to hand from, for example, the November 2007 UNHCRsurvey of five Member States. The UK is considered as a furtherexample, that of a member state where, despite it being seenas unnecessary to make any substantial changes, the implementingmeasures have required important changes in method of approachand in conceptual language.