ECHR roundup (1)
01 January 1991
ECHR roundup
artdoc March=1995
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