Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/32555.96-en-20051019/
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 08:34:45
Document Index: 647316128

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 10', '§ 65', '§ 48', '§ 65', '§ 67', '§ 24', '§ 25', '§ 26', '§ 42', '§ 53', '§ 60', '§ 81', '§ 89', '§ 52', '§ 74', '§ 192', '§ 49', '§ 23', '§ 25', '§ 88', '§ 66', '§ 22', '§ 36', '§ 31', '§ 102', '§ 80', '§ 62', '§ 38', '§ 81', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 8', 'art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art 6']

ROCHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM / ECHR
ROCHE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM View
AppNr 32555/96
Articles 10; 13+6-1; 13+P1-1; 14+6-1; 14+P1-1; 41; 6-1; 8; P1-1
Violated / NonViolated 866-1101314P1-1
Citations 5-15-45-56-1835-15-46-181334
No violation of Art. 13+6
No violation of Art. 13+P1-1
Published in Report of Judgments and Decisions 2005-X
Application Number 32555/96
Represented by WELCH J.
Date of Introduction 31/01/1996
Date of Judgment 19/10/2005
Conclusion No violation of Art. 6-1 ; No violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 14+6 or 14+P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 13+6 or 13+P1-1 ; Violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 10 ; Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings
Articles 6-1 ; 8 ; 10 ; 13+6-1 ; 13+P1-1 ; 14+6-1 ; 14+P1-1 ; P1-1 ; 41
Law at Issue Pension Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 ; Pension Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules 1980, Rule 6 ; Crown Proceedings Act 1947, sections 1-2 and 10 ; Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 ; Limitation Act 1980, section 11 ; Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, Articles 3-5 and Schedule 4 ; Access to Health Records Act 1990
Strasbourg Case Law A v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, § 65, ECHR 2002-X ; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2001-XI ; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom du 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93 ; Dyer v. the United Kingdom, no. 10475/83, decision of 9 October 1984, Decisions and Reports 39, p. 246 ; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, § 65 and § 67 ; Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, §§ 24-31, ECHR 2001-VII ; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, § 25et § 26, ECHR 2001-XI ; Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160), §§ 42 and 52 ; Golder v. the United Kingdom du 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18 ; Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 53 and § 60 ; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III (extracts) ; James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, §§ 81 and 85, Series A no. 98 ; Ketterick v. the United Kingdom, no. 9803/82, decision of 15 October 1982, unreportede ; König v. Germany du 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, § 89 ; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 52, ECHR 2004-IX ; Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 74 ; Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, § 192 ; Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, § 49 ; McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324 ; McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23 and § 25, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts) ; McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 June 1998, §§ 88, 99 and 101, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III ; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B ; Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V ; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, ECHR 2002-II ; Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999-VIII ; Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 585, § 22 ; Pinder v. the United Kingdom, no. 10096/82, decision of 9 October 1984, unreportede ; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 36 ; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 31 ; R v. Belgium, no. 33919/96, 27 February 2001 ; Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, §§ 102-103, 21 March 2002 ; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A, § 80 ; Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 1998, § 62, Reports 1998-IV ; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, § 38 ; W. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121 ; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 81, 87, 91, 100, 101 and 134, ECHR 2001-V
Keywords "(Art. 10-1) FREEDOM TO RECEIVE INFORMATION" "(Art. 13) ARGUABLE CLAIM" "(Art. 13) EFFECTIVE REMEDY" "(Art. 6-1) ACCESS TO COURT" "(Art. 6-1) CIVIL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS" "(Art. 8-1) RESPECT FOR PRIVATE LIFE" "(P1-1-1) PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF POSSESSIONS" "(P1-1-1) POSSESSIONS"
R. v. BELGIUM
6-1 Court (Third Section) Judgment (Just Satisfaction)
2 (art. 6-1) public hearing
1 8+13
2 Not necessary to examine further complaint under Art. 6-1
1 Violation of Art 6-1
JARNEA v. ROMANIA
6-1, 34 Court (Second Section) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)