ECHR - Cases Flashcards
Which Article of the ECHR does Golder v UK relate to?
Article 6
Right to a fair trial
Which Article of the ECHR does Tyrer v UK relate to?
Article 3
Freedom from torture
Which Article of the ECHR does Handyside v UK relate to?
Article 10
Freedom of expression
Which Article of the ECHR does Pretty v UK relate to?
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
Golder v UK (1975)
Golder was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was denied a solicitor by Prison Rules 1964.
ECtHR: found in favour of Golder - this violated Article 6 ECHR: the right to a fair hearing.
Tyrer v UK (1978)
Tyrer was sentenced to 3 strokes of birch. He argued this was a violation of Article 3: freedom from torture.
ECtHR: this WAS a violation of Article 3.
Handyside v UK (1979)
Little Red Schoolbook’s author (Handyside) was prosecuted on a charge of obscenity (domestically). He argued this was contrary to Article 10.
ECtHR: gave domestic courts a WIDE margin of appreciation, so found in favour of the UK.
Pretty v UK (2002)
Pretty had motor neurones disease and wanted husband to assist her suicide. She argued UK’s blanket ban on assisted suicide violated Article 8.
ECtHR: held UK was within its margin of appreciation to have a blanket ban on assisted suicide (ensuring
Hirst v UK (No.2) (2005)
Prisoners’ denied the right to vote argued this violated Article 3, Protocol 1 ECHR.
ECtHR: held blanket ban DID violate Article 3, Protocol 1 ECHR. Exercised a more narrow margin of appreciation to protect this right.
Chahal v UK (1996)
Detainment and planned deportation of Chahal based on national security concerns was argued by Chahal to be contrary to Article 3 if he was deported.
ECtHR: held that despite wide margin of appreciation, ECHR held it WOULD be unlawful to deport per Article 3 as this would risk compromising an absolute right.
Which Article of the ECHR does Hirst v UK (No.2) (2005) relate to?
Article 3 Protocol 1 ECHR
Which Article of the ECHR does Chahal v UK (1996) relate to?
Article 3
Freedom from torture
Ireland v UK (1978) establishes…
That there is a distinction between torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.
Torture = most severe.
Which Article of the ECHR does AP, Garçon and Nicot relate to?
Article 8
Right to respect for private and family life
Is torture or inhuman and degrading treatment more severe?
Source?
Torture is more severe.
Ireland v UK (1978)
Cruz Varas v Sweden establishes that the standard of proof in expulsion cases requires…
‘Substantial grounds for believing in the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.’
Soering v UK establishes (in expulsion cases) that the burden of proving a breach of Article 3 lies with?…
The STATE to prove that deportation will NOT expose the expelled person to a breach of Article 3 in the state they are deported to.
In the context of expulsion cases, Chahal v UK (1996) establishes…
That national interests (prevention of terrorism) CANNOT override the interests of individuals (and freedom from torture under Article 3).
Ilias v Hungary (2020) establishes that…
A state cannot remove an individual asylum seeker without determining their asylum claim first, UNLESS it has been established that their claim will receive proper consideration in a safe third country.
NSK v UK (2022)
Claim taken to ECtHR that UK’s Rwanda Policy and concerns around procedure.
Result: ECtHR issued a Rule 39 Interim Measure on 14th June 2022, preventing refoulement of asylum seekers from UK -> Rwanda.
