Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493 – The investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from the Royal Navy on the basis of sexual orientation was a breach of the right to a private life under Article 8. Van Kück v. Germany [2003] ECHR 285 – Inadequate access to a fair hearing in a case involving reimbursement by ...
A, B and C v Ireland is a landmark 2010 case of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to privacy under Article 8.The court rejected the argument that article 8 conferred a right to abortion, but found that Ireland had violated the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies ...
This parenthetical reference to a prior note or page may be disrupted if an editor inserts a new reference in the article before the reference of the parenthetical. For European Union cases, Case 240/83 Procureur de la République v ADBHU [1985] ECR 531; For European Court of Human Rights cases, Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10
The applicants submitted six applications (Applications No: 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64) between 1962 and 1964 on their own behalf and on the behalf of their children, alleging that Belgian linguistic legislation, relating to education, infringed on their rights under the European Convention, namely Article 8 (family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (non ...
The test was developed in the Handyside v.United Kingdom, Silver v. United Kingdom, and Lingens v. Austria cases, related to freedom of expression. It has also been invoked in cases involving state surveillance, which the court acknowledges can constitute an Article 8 violation but may be "strictly necessary for safeguarding the democratic institutions" (Klass and Others v.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Retrieved from " ...
Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, Application no. 45036/98 (30 June 2005), was a decision taken by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which held that the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of Member States' national adjudications are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Therefore, no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR had taken place. On the issue of the act's age of consent being fixed at 21, the Court ruled eight votes to four that the age of consent laws were not in violation of the human rights convention, because protection of the rights of others was a legitimate aim, and therefore justified.