Court: European Court of Human Rights
European Court finds that powers to stop and search individuals at airports are not in accordance with law
Beghal v United Kingdom (App No. 4755/16)
In the case of Beghal v United Kingdom (App No. 4755/16), the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the power to examine persons under the Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 7 was “neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse”.
Selahattin Demirtas v Turkey (No. 2) (App. no. 14305/17)
The ECtHR has found that the pre-trial detention of Selahatin Demirtaş, co-chair of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party, violated ECHR, arts 5(3) and 18, and art 3 of Protocol 1 as the predominant purpose of the detention was to stifle pluralism in Turkey.
Big Brother Watch & Ors v UK (App Nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15)
This appeal challenged the legality of the surveillance of UK citizens and collection of their personal information and communications under the legal regime set out in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The ECtHR held that the bulk interception regime under RIPA 2000, s 8(4) violates ECHR, art 8 due to lack of oversight. Thus, the interception itself did not cause the violation; rather the lack of adherence to criteria set out in case law was the cause. The Court also held that the regime under RIPA 2000, Ch II for acquiring communications data from communication service providers violates art 8 as it is not in accordance with the law. Both these regimes were also held to violate art 10. However the judges found that the regime for sharing intelligence with foreign governments did not violate ECHR, arts 8 or 10.
Ireland v United Kingdom (App No 5310/71)
Ireland made the revision request in the case Ireland v The United Kingdom (App No 5310/71) 1978 on the grounds that new evidence had emerged, which showed, in particular, that the effects of the ill-treatment had been long-term and severe. The 14 men involved in the case were detained by the British authorities under emergency […]
JN v United Kingdom (App No. 37289/12)
The ECtHR found that while the UK’s immigration detention system as a whole was not contrary to ECHR, art 5, the applicant’s period of detention for immigration purposes after mid-2008 did amount to a violation of ECHR, art 5(1)(f), given the authorities’ inaction in this regard. The applicant was awarded damages of €7,500 damages, as well as costs and expenses.