Wrong MCQ's Flashcards
A case comes before the Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of a provision in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant argues that the court should follow a recent line of decisions from the European Court on Human Rights (the ‘ECtHR judgments’), which provide a clear interpretation of the provision. The respondent argues that the court is free to make its own interpretation of Article 8.
Which of the following best explains how the Supreme Court should treat the ECtHR judgments?
The Supreme Court should follow the ECtHR judgments. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts are required to “take into account” the case law of the ECtHR. This has been interpreted as requiring the courts to follow (or ‘mirror’) the ECtHR’s interpretation of convention rights when the point is clear and settled. Thus, in light of the ECtHR’s clear line of authority on the Article 8 provision, the Supreme Court should follow the ECtHR judgments.
A man has been dismissed from his employment at a bank because of his religion. As a result, he brings a claim against the bank under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In the claim, the man contends that his firing violates Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion) and Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The bank applies for a dismissal of the case.
How is the court most likely to rule on the bank’s motion?
The court should grant the application because the claim does not satisfy the criteria under HRA Section 6. Section 6 claims may be brought only against a public authority, and here the bank is not a public authority.
