European Court of Human Rights Jan-Mar 95
01 July 1995
Cases declared admissible by the plenary Commission include:
* Alison Halford v UK (20605/92): alleged interception of senior female police officer's telephone calls in connection with proceedings against her chief constable in which she claimed sex discrimination (Arts 8, 10 and 13: private life, freedom of expression, no effective remedy). The Interception of Communications Tribunal had found no violation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (without confirming or denying that the calls had been tapped or that authorisation had been obtained from the Home Secretary).
* Ahmed v Austria (25964/94): threatened expulsion to Somalia following revocation of asylum after criminal conviction: (Art 3: inhuman and degrading treatment)
Cases declared inadmissible include:
* Rai (Milan), Allmond (Gill) and Negotiate Now v UK (25522/94): Department of National Heritage refused applicants permission to hold rally in Trafalgar Square for their organisation, in support of peace talks for northern Ireland, on ground that since 1972 there had been a policy banning rallies on northern Ireland from Trafalgar Square. Judicial review had been refused. The Commission held the application, under Arts 9, 10 and 11 (freedom of conscience, assembly, expression) inadmissible, on the ground that the ban applied only to one high-profile location, and pursued the aim of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others.
* Associated Newspapers v UK (24770/94): Applicants convicted of contempt of court and fined ?60,000 for publication of jury room secrets after Blue Arrow trial: no breach of Art 10 (freedom of expression); the strict prohibition on disclosure of jury room deliberations necessary in a democratic society to safeguard the freedom of expression of jurors in the jury room: inadmissible.
Cases recently referred to the Court by the Commission include:
* Buckley v UK (20348/92): Repeated refusal of planning permission to allow Gypsy family to station their three caravans on their own land: Commission found breach of Art 8 (family and private life).
* Wingrove v UK (17419/90): Refusal to classify video on grounds of blasphemy; Commission found breach of Art 10 (freedom of expression).
* Pullar v UK (22399/93): Presence on jury trying applicant on criminal charges of an employee of a prosecution witness: Commission found breach of Art 6(1) (fair trial by impartial tribunal).
* Boughanemi v France (22070/93): Tunisian, living in France since age eight, whole family there, French cohabitee and child, expelled after series of criminal convictions: Commission found breach of Art 8 (family life).
* Amuur v France (19776/92): detention of Somali asylum-seekers in "international zone" of airport later declared unlawful by French constitutional court, refusal to entertain their asylum claims, refusal of entry and removal to Syria: Commission found no breach of Art 5 (right to liberty and security of person).
* Gustafsson v Sweden (15573/89): Boss refused to join employers' association or recognise collective agreement between it and unions; government's refusal to restrain picketing and boycott of his business: Commission found that lack of state protection violated Art 11 (freedom of association).
The Court gave judgment in the cases of:
* Quinn v France: Eleven-hour detention after court ordered immediate release, so that authorities could prepare extradition request, did violated Art 5(1) (right to liberty); subsequent detention for extradition did not.
* Piermont v France (Series A, Vol 314, 27.4.95): German MEP expelled from French Polynesia in 1986 after participating in demonstration and speaking against French nuclear tests in Pacific: no breaches of Protocol 4 Art 2 (freedom of movement), but breach of Art 10 (freedom of expression), in that a fair balance was not struck between the public interest in preventing disorder and MEP's freedom of expression