No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Human rights — Discrimination — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 14 — Right to respect for one’s family life — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8 — Whether facts of case falling “within the ambit”of Article 8 — Whether applicant’s health status “other status”within meaning of Article 14 — Disability, health status — HIV infection — Family ties — Residency permit — Whether applicant in analogous position to other aliens — Whether objective and reasonable justification for difference in treatment — Margin of appreciation, wide or narrow — Scope of the margin of appreciation — Whether people living with HIV particularly vulnerable group — European consensus — Whether particularly compelling justification for differential treatment — Whether applicant victim of discrimination on account of his health status in violation of Article 14 of Convention taken together with Article 8
Human rights — Prohibition of discrimination — Differential treatment — Unanimous view of international bodies and experts — Relevant international documents and reports — Whether particularly compelling justification for differential treatment — HIV transmission, unsafe behaviours — Generalized assumptions — Differential treatment between long-term settlers and short-term visitors — Potential burden on publicly funded healthcare system — Whether travel and residence restrictions on persons living with HIV effective in preventing spread of disease — Whether harmful to public health of country — Whether applicant’s exclusion from residence attaining legitimate aim of protection of public health — Whether violation of applicant’s rights under Article 14 of Convention taken together with Article 8
Human rights — Prohibition of discrimination — Blanket and indiscriminate nature of restriction — Need for individualized assessment on facts of particular case — Whether Government overstepping narrow margin of appreciation — Whether Government violating applicant’s rights under Article 14 of Convention taken together with Article 8
Damages — Just satisfaction — Distress and frustration — Costs and expenses — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 41