European Court: Human rights roundup (2)
01 January 1991
European Court: Human rights roundup
artdoc July=1994
In 1993 52 cases were referred to the European Court of Human
Rights, which delivered judgements in 60 cases. The majority of
complaints were of violations of the right to a fair trial under
Article 6.
During the year, Malta and Denmark incorporated the European
Convention on Human Rights into their national law, and Sweden,
Norway and Iceland are actively considering incorporation.
Estonia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia signed the Convention
(and the Czech Republic and Slovakia re-signed separately) and
Poland accepted the right of individual petition and the
compulsory jurisdiction of the court.
At its Vienna conference in October 1993 the Council of Europe
decided to replace the current control machinery of the
Convention by a single court. The text of the amending protocol
is due for signature in May 1994.
Selected cases dealt with at Strasbourg October 1993-May 1994:
The Commission declared admissible (cases that will proceed):
* Zana v Turkey (No 18954/91): conviction following publication
of remarks made to journalist in support of PKK contrary to Art
6S1 (right to fair trial) and Art 10 (freedom of expression).
* A v France No 19776/92): restriction of asylum-seekers to
airport transit zone contrary to Art 5S1 (right to liberty).
* Benham v UK (No 19380/92): detention for failure to pay poll
tax and unavailability of legal aid for magistrates' court
proceedings, contrary to Art 5S1 (freedom) and Art 6S1 (fair
trial) and S3 (legal aid).
* John Murray v UK (No 18731/91): drawing of adverse inferences
from remaining silent during police questioning and at trial,
contrary to Art 6S1 (fair trial) and S2 (presumption of
innocence).
* Peignier v France (No 20408/92), A L v France (Nos 18974/91 and
19334/92): interception of telephone conversations by the police
in context of criminal investigations, contrary to Art 8 (private
life).
* Saunders v UK (No 19187/91) (see Statewatch 4:1).
The Commission declared inadmissible:
* Brind v UK: ban on broadcasting of Sinn Fein spokespersons (NB
Equivalent case in northern Ireland, McLoughlin v UK, is still
awaiting a decision).
The Commission communicated to governments for their comments:
* an application (No 22384/93 v UK) concerning the drawing of
adverse inferences from accused remaining silent during police
questioning and from his refusal to give evidence in his defence,
contrary to Art 6S1 (fair trial) and 6S2 (presumption of
innocence).
* an application (No 23065/93 v Finland) on the refusal to allow
a Kosovo-Albanian Muslim to join his family who were granted
residence permits for humanitarian reasons.
* an application (No 20605/92 v UK) on alleged interception of
telephone conversations by the police after the applicant, a
senior police officer, had brought proceedings alleging
discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to consistent
failure to recommend her for promotion.
Cases referred to the Court for hearing:
* Vereniging Weekblad "Bluf!" v Netherlands (No 16616/90):
seizure and withdrawal from circulation of issue of weekly
newspaper in which information about Internal Security Service
published: Commission found a violation of Art 10 (right to
impart information).
* Welch v UK: the complaint was that a confiscation order against
applicant under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act was a
retrospective criminal penalty in breach of Art 7. The Commission
delivered an opinion that there was no violation of Art 7 in
October 1993.
* Allenet de Ribemont v France: the complainant was publicly
accused of involvement in a murder by the French minister of the
interior at a press conference in 1976. He was immediately
arrested and spent four years in custody before charges were
dropped. The Commission delivered an opinion that the public
accusation was a breach of Art 6S2 (presumption of innocence) and
the dela