The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Right to form and join trade unions — Whether creating obligations for State in its capacity as employer — Right to strike — Non-striking members of striking union denied retroactive application of pay award — Whether a violation of right to form and join trade unions — Whether discrimination — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 11 and 14

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Right to form and join trade union — Whether applicable to conduct of State as employer — State refusing to make collective agreements with small independent union — Policy of restricting the number of organizations with which collective agreements were to be concluded — Whether discriminatory — Whether municipal law providing an effective remedy — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 11, 13 and 14

Treaties — Interpretation — Subsequent practice of parties — Court referring to European Social Charter, 1961, to confirm interpretation of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for the Protection of — System of military disciplinary law and procedure — Applicability of Convention to members of armed forces as well as to civilians — Relevancy of the particular characteristics of military life — Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security of person) — Exhaustiveness of permissible limitations set out in Article 5(1) (a)–(f) — Meaning of “liberty” in context of Convention — Difference in standards between servicemen and civilians — Normal conditions of life within armed forces of Contracting States — Evaluation of various forms of physical restriction complained of — Compatibility of deprivations of liberty as found with Article 5(1) of the Convention

Article 5(1)(b) (restriction permitted to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law) — Wide interpretation unacceptable — Article 5(1)(c) (permissible restriction regarding, inter alia, detention on remand) — Restriction exceeding maximum permissible under domestic law — Breach not eliminated by taking period of detention on remand into consideration in regard to sentence

Article 14 (prohibition against discrimination in respect of enjoyment of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention) — Distinctions between officers and other ranks — Hierarchical structure of armies creative of inequalities — Margin of appreciation — Pursuit of a legitimate aim — Principle of proportionality — Article 14

Article 6(1) (right to fair hearing in, inter alia, determination of a criminal charge) — Relationship between disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges — Court’s right to determine whether a disciplinary charge counts as criminal within the meaning of Article 6 — Matters to be considered in making such a decision — Failure to afford a public hearing in regard to certain of the proceedings — Article 6(2) (presumption of innocence) — Interpretation of this provision — Article 6(3) (specific procedural guarantees in regard to determination of criminal charge) — Adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence — Right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one’s own choice — Right to have witnesses examined — Article 6 and 14 taken together — Difference between military and civilian proceedings explicable by differences between military and civil life

Article 10 (freedom of expression) — Meaning and application of phrase “for the prevention of disorder” — Application to the order that must prevail within the confines of a specific social group — Relationship of phrase “for the prevention of disorder” to the phrase “prevention of crime” — Meaning and application of phrase “necessary in a democratic society” — Margin of appreciation — “Duties” and “responsibilities” within the meaning of Article 10 (2) — Distinction between depriving person of his freedom of expression and punishing the abusive exercise of that freedom — Articles 10 and 14 taken together

Article 11 (freedom of association) — Applicants punished not for their participation in an association or its activities but for their abuse of freedom of expression

Article 50 (question of just satisfaction) — Moral damage — Factors taken into account in the evaluation thereof — Token indemnity — No evidence of direct or indirect damage — Judgment in itself adequate just satisfaction

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Education — Duty of State to respect religious and philosophical convictions of parents — Compulsory sex education in State schools — Duty of State to ensure that information is presented in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner — Duty of State not to pursue policy of indoctrination — Relevance of the existence of heavily subsidised private schools and right of parents to educate children at home — Right of exemption from religious but not from sex education — Whether discrimination in regard to a protected right — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 8, 9 and 14 — First Protocol to the Convention, Article 2

Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights — Applicant wishing to withdraw application after matter referred to Court by European Commission on Human Rights

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Freedom of expression — Limits on freedom of expression — Conviction of publisher and seizure of publications under obscenity legislation — Whether restrictions necessary for the protection of morals — No common European concept of morals — Margin of appreciation afforded to State authorities — Function of freedom of expression in a democratic society — Relevance of age of target readership of literature — Relevance of attitude of other European States towards same publication — Relevance of attitude of national authorities towards other similar publications — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 10, 17 and 18

Discrimination — Whether seizure of allegedly obscene literature politically motivated — European Convention, Article 14

Deprivation of possessions — Meaning — Provisional seizure pending trial — Eventual destruction — Whether necessary — First Protocol to the European Convention, Article 1

European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Supervisory role in relation to Article 10 and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention — Capacity to review decisions of national authorities — Capacity to consider allegation already rejected by Commission as manifestly ill-founded

Treaties — Interpretation — Bilingual treaties — Comparison of French and English texts

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Application brought by one Contracting State against another under Article 24 — Failure of Respondent State fully to afford desirable assistance to the Commission — Article 28 (duty of Contracting States to cooperate with Convention institutions)

Article 3 (prohibition against torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) — Article 3 — Uncontested allegations of breach — Question whether an adjudication would be devoid of purpose — Role of Court in elucidating, safeguarding and developing the rules instituted by the Convention — Question of Court's jurisdiction to deal with individual cases in view of Commission's concern with an “administrative practice” — Commission's admissibility decision traces the framework for a case subsequently brought before Court — Definition of an “administrative practice” — Strict liability under the Convention of higher State authorities for actions of subordinates — Importance of concept of a practice in the context of the domestic remedies rule which applies equally to State and individual applications — Location of burden of proof — Standard of proof — Proof “beyond reasonable doubt” — Place of inferences, presumptions of fact and conduct of Parties in applying this standard — Minimum level of severity for treatment to fall within Article 3 — Relativity of such a level depending on all the circumstances of the case — Victim's conduct irrelevant in applying this standard — Evaluation of “the five techniques” — Whether reaching the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the term “torture”, whether “inhuman treatment” — Other alleged practices — Practices of physical ill-treatment which are discreditable and reprehensible but not in breach of Article 3

Request for a consequential order from the Court — Sanctions available to Court do not include power to direct a Contracting State to institute criminal or disciplinary proceedings

Article 5 (prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of liberty and protection of various ancillary rights) — List of cases in Article 5(1) in which it is permissible to deprive someone of his liberty is exhaustive — Various deprivations of liberty alleged unjustifiable under Article 5(1) — Failure to provide reasons for arrest — Breach of Article 5(2) — Impugned measures not effected for the purpose of bringing the persons concerned promptly before the competent legal authority — Breach of Article 5(3) — No entitlement to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of detentions would be decided speedily by a court — Breach of Article 5(4) — Habeas corpus in this context — Judicial review powers insufficiently wide in scope to satisfy Article 5(4)

Article 5 taken together with Article 15 (right of derogation in time of war or other public emergency) — Conditions under which Article 15 comes into play — Role of the Court in applying these criteria — Wide margin of appreciation afforded to national authorities in Article 15 determinations — Margin accompanied by international supervision — Evidentiary questions — Court's complete freedom in assessing admissibility, relevance, and probative value — Factors reducing weight of certain evidence — Factors establishing that Respondent was reasonably entitled to consider that normal legislation offered insufficient resources for campaign against terrorism — Arrest of persons for sole purpose of obtaining information from them about others — Fact that measures were used principally or exclusively against one group of terrorists and not against another in context of Article 15 — Whether such restriction of scope incompatible with the standard of being “strictly required” — Whether tendency towards a liberalisation of domestic enactments meaning that initial measures were not “strictly required” — Article 15 must leave a place for progressive adaptations

Article 5 taken together with Article 14 (prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of the protected rights and freedoms) — Difference in treatment between two groups of terrorists — Question of objective and reasonable justification in this regard — Existence of profound differences between the two sources of terrorist activity — Court unable to affirm, on evidence before it in view of margin of appreciation, that there was any violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5

Article 6 (the principle of a fair trial) — Unnecessary to decide the matter — Assuming Article 6's materiality, derogations therefrom justifiable under Article 15 — Similarly, no discrimination contrary to Article 14 in the context of Article 6

Article 1 (duty to secure the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention) — Meaning and significance of Article 1 in the framework of the Convention — In order to secure the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms there set forth national authorities must prevent or remedy any breach at subordinate levels — Question whether a Contracting State is entitled to challenge a law in abstracto — Such a breach may be found only if it is immediately apparent — No such breaches existent in context of Articles 3, 5, 6 and 15, taken together with Articles 1 and 14

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment — Judicial infliction of corporal punishment upon juvenile — Punishment not inhuman but sufficiently humiliating to amount to “degrading punishment” — No less degrading because of deterrent effect — Standard of degrading punishment — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 3

Application of European Convention to territories for whose international relations a Member State is responsible — Isle of Man — Application of Convention subject to “local requirements” — Whether any local requirements justifying birching — European Convention, Article 63(3)

Procedure of European Court of Human Rights — Applicant wishing to withdraw application — Whether amounting to discontinuance of proceedings — Whether affecting application of Article 50 — Whether necessary to hold investigation in Isle of Man

Treaties — Interpretation of the European Convention — Convention a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present day standards

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the determination of civil rights and obligations — Notion of “civil rights” — Whether rights of a private law character — Relevance of substantive content and effect of rights rather than formal legal character in municipal legal system — Right of a medical practitioner to practise medicine and to run a private clinic — Application of the standard of reasonable time to proceedings in administrative courts — Point at which time begins to run for this purpose — Period to which the standard is to be applied — Applicant's conduct — Unjustifiable judicial delays — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6 (1)

European Court of Human Rights — Procedure — Whether Court entitled to consider allegation raised as alternative ground in application and declared inadmissible by Commission — Damages — When question of award of damages ready for decision — European Convention, Article 50

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Secret surveillance of communications in interests of national security and public order — Whether legislation providing for surveillance compatible with respect for private life and correspondence — Whether telephone conversations covered by notion of correspondence — Extent to which secret surveillance justified in a democratic society by need to protect that society against sophisticated forms of espionage and terrorism — Surveillance subject only to political safeguards — Whether judicial safeguards required — Whether necessary that subject of surveillance should be informed of measures taken after surveillance has ceased — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8

Requirement that States provide a national remedy in respect of any alleged violation of European Convention — Not a prerequisite that a violation first be established — Whether remedy must be judicial — Limited meaning of “effective remedy” in circumstances involving national security — Whether failure to inform subject of surveillance about measures taken after surveillance has ceased a failure to provide an effective national remedy — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 13

Requirement of due process and public hearing — Whether secret surveillance a violation — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(1)

Procedure under the European Convention — Locus standi — Applicants complaining of existence of surveillance legislation without being able to show that they had ever been placed under surveillance — Whether Applicants victims of a violation of the Convention — Whether Convention creating an actio popularis — Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Commission — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 25 and 27(2)

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Right of accused person to the services of an interpreter — Whether State permitted to impose charge for interpreter’s services as part of order for costs if accused convicted — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(3)(e) — Whether necessary to consider Article 14 in addition to Article 6

Treaties — Principles of interpretation — Whether literal interpretation contradicted by context, object and purpose of provision — Scope of provision to be interpreted with regard to underlying principle of ensuring a fair trial — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

Procedure — Request to strike case from list — Application of European Convention, Article 50 — Whether case ready for decision — Costs of application

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Freedom of expression — Restriction imposed by contempt of court proceedings on Applicants’ desire to publish information and comment on aspects of the drug thalidomide and its noxious and deforming effects — Whether restriction justifiable — Article 10

Whether Court had jurisdiction to consider not only English court injunction but also alleged continuing restraints caused by supposed overbreadth and lack of precision of English law of contempt — Jurisdiction limited to matters lodged with and accepted by the Commission

Question whether the interference with freedom of expression was “prescribed by law” — “Law” comprehends both legislation and “unwritten” law — Interpretation of a law-making treaty whose equally authentic versions are not exactly the same — Law must be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision for citizen to regulate his conduct — Despite measure of uncertainty in English law and divergent approaches thereto of English courts it was reasonably foreseeable that publication might fall foul of contempt law

Whether interference had aims which were legitimate under Article 10 (2) — Aim of maintaining the “authority of the judiciary” — This phrase comprises the machinery of justice as well as the judges in their official capacity

Question whether interference was “necessary in a democratic society” for maintaining the authority of the judiciary — Meaning of “necessary” — ”Margin of appreciation” afforded to Governmental authorities — Supervisory power not limited to ascertaining whether a respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith — Scope of domestic power of appreciation not identical as regards each aim listed in Article 10(2) — Contrast in that regard between Handyside case as to the aim of “protection of morals” and that before the Court — Authority of the judiciary a more objective notion — More extensive European supervision — International standards do not mean uniformity — Question whether Governmental action regarding the injunction corresponded to a “pressing social need” — Breadth of scope of the injunction — Nature of the proposed newspaper article — Overall context of the proposed publication — Discharge of injunction in 1976 — Questions prompted thereby — Need to balance public interest at large with the requirements of the fair administration of justice — Article 10 guarantees not only freedom of the press to inform the public but also the right of the public to be properly informed — Restraint not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued

Non-discrimination in respect of secured rights — No evidence of discrimination — Article 14

Improper use of restrictions — Issue not pursued — Article 18

Just satisfaction — Question not ready for decision — Article 50

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Right to respect for family life — Illegitimate child — Whether law restricting rights of illegitimate child and restricting mother's right to adopt child a denial of respect for family life — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8

Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — Whether including right to leave estate to illegitimate child — First Protocol, Article 1

Prohibition of degrading treatment — Whether legal restrictions on illegitimate family degrading, Convention, Article 3

Right to found a family — Whether infringed — Convention, Article 12

Discrimination — Whether discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children objectively justifiable — Convention, Article 14

Procedure — Whether Applicants “victims” of a violation of the Convention — Convention, Article 25 — Damages — Whether declaration constituting “just satisfaction” — Whether award of token damages appropriate — Convention, Article 50

Treaties — Interpretation — Need to interpret Convention in light of present day circumstances and requirements

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(1) — Right to a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and duties — Decree of judicial separation — Only available in High Court — Legal aid not available — Complexity of High Court procedure making it difficult for person to represent herself — Whether a breach of Article 6 (1) resulting from combination of absence of legal aid and complexity of legal procedure

Article 8 — Right to respect for family life — Whether sometimes involving right to relief from duty of cohabitation — Applicant frequently beaten by husband — Divorce not available — Applicant unable to obtain decree of judicial separation because of cost and complexity of only legal procedure available — Whether State in breach of Article 8 by failing to provide accessible procedure for relieving Applicant of duty to cohabit with husband

Article 14 — Discrimination — Position of this provision in scheme of Convention

Article 50 — Compensation — When question ready for decision

Article 26 — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Availability of other procedures for securing separation from spouse — Voluntary agreement between parties — Order barring molestation of wife — Whether failure to seek such agreement or order a failure to exhaust local remedies — Relevance of alternative procedures — Whether failure to appear in person before High Court a failure to exhaust local remedies — Whether possibility that Applicant would not in fact benefit from decree of judicial separation relevant in considering question of exhaustion of local remedies

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Detention of mentally ill person — Whether an unjustifiable deprivation of liberty — Failure to provide adequate judicial safeguards and to ensure a fair hearing for a mentally ill person — Detainee deprived of right to manage own property and affairs — Whether a determination of civil rights and obligations — Whether adequate judicial procedure — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 5(1), 5(4) and 6(1)

Compensation — When question ready for decision — Article 50

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Detention pending trial — Right to have such detention considered by a judge or other officer acting in a judicial capacity — Decision made by District Attorney who was also responsible for prosecution — Whether adequate safeguards — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 5

Exhaustion of local remedies — Failure of Applicant to raise issue before municipal courts — European Convention incorporated into municipal law — Article 26

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Foreigners ordered to pay interpretation costs in criminal proceedings taken against them in German courts — Violation of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Article 6(3)e — Whether Article 50 applicable — Award of just satisfaction — Effect of settlement between Applicant and Respondent Government — “Equitable nature” of settlement

Article 50 — Entitlement to status of “injured party” — Whether Applicant's lawyer could rely on Article 50 to seek just satisfaction on own account — Remuneration of lawyers — Legal aid scheme

Article 14 — Position of non-German speaking foreigner before German courts — Order to pay costs of interpretation — Whether discrimination

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on — Article 50 — Whether applicable on finding of breach of Article 6(1) — Effect of settlement between Applicant and Respondent Government

Article 50 — Power of Court to award just satisfaction — Whether domestic remedies provide complete or partial reparation — restitutio in integrum

Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Whether obligation to plead exact amount in claim — Pecuniary damage consisting of costs incurred in exercising domestic remedies and before Convention institutions — Whether relevant item — Non-pecuniary damage caused through established breach of Convention — Damage to professional and personal reputation and financial situation — Assessment of — Equitable basis under Article 50