ECHR roundup
01 November 1994
Selected cases dealt with at Strasbourg June-September 1994:
In its 247th session (27 June to 8 July 1994) the European Commission of Human Rights declared 74 cases admissible and 175 inadmissible (either "manifestly unfounded" or because of delay or failure to exhaust domestic remedies). Another 64 cases were communicated to governments for their comments. The Commission referred five cases to the European Court on Human Rights and reported on 86 cases.
Applications declared admissible included:
Abed Hussein v UK and Prem Singh v UK (21928/93 23389/94) on the lack of review rights of detention "at Her Majesty's pleasure" (Art 5(4), liberty).
FN and BN v Netherlands (23366/94): the refusal of entry to a Zairean orphan girl and her removal unaccompanied to Zaire (Arts 3 8 13: inhuman or degrading treatment, family life, no domestic remedy).
Applications held inadmissible included:
A case (21482/93 v UK) of alleged interception by the security services of telexes sent by eastern European trade unions to a Scottish trade union official.
The Commission referred to the Court:
John Murray v UK (Commission report 27 June 1994): adverse inferences from failure to answer questions, under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 did not infringe the right to a fair trial (Art 6(1)), but denial of access to a solicitor did.
The Court gave judgment in the following cases:
Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria (judgment 20.9.94): seizure and forfeiture of film adjudged blasphemous: no violation of Art 10 (freedom of expression) as the national courts had weighed this properly against others' right to respect for their religious beliefs.
Fayed v UK (judgment 21.9.94): the publication of a report of DTI inspectors on the Fayed brothers' conduct of a public company did not violate their rights under Art 6(1) (fair trial).
Jersild v Denmark (judgment 23.9.94): the conviction of a journalist for aiding and abetting the dissemination of racist statements, for conducting and broadcasting an interview with racist youths, was a violation of Art 10 (freedom of expression), bearing in mind that the purpose of the programme was information and not the dissemination of racist statements.
The Commission's reports on a number of old cases were also published. These included:
Ali Ouinas v France (13756/88): respect for the family life of prisoners includes the maintenance of contacts with a prisoner to a prison closer to his home involves interference with the right to family life (Art 8) only in exceptional circumstances such as where an access order is in force. But where a prisoner is prevented from enjoying the right to receive access visits because of the distance the interference may be considered necessary for the prevention of crime or disorder. Application inadmissible.
Wakefield v UK (15817/89): Refusal to transfer a prisoner closer to home to facilitate visits by his fiancee did not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art 3) and was not an interference with the right to family life (Art 8) although it could interfere with private life (Art 8). But it could be justified as necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime. Application inadmissible.
Bens and Ewert v Luxembourg (13251/87): A virulent press campaign could render a trial unfair. Also, a fair trial demanded that no representative of the state declares a person guilty before trial. On its facts the application was held inadmissible.
A v France (17262/90): a remedy which does not suspend the execution of an expulsion decision is not effective for the purposes of the European Convention (asylum-seeker's deportation to Zaire).
Amedee Auguste v France (11837/85): the appearance of the defendant in a glass cage did not violate the right to a fair trial as it was a permanent security measure used for other serious cases and it did not prevent communication with the lawyers<