Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") * * and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen , Registrar , and Mr H. Petzold , Deputy Registrar ,
The Commission�s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46), and the Government�s application to Article 48 (art. 48). The object of the request and the application was to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 (art. 8) and also, in the case of the request, Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention.
In accordance with the President�s orders and directions, the Registrar received, on 1 March 1991, the applicant�s memorial, on 4 March 1991, the Government�s, and, on 24 July and 16 August 1991, the applicant�s claim under Article 50 (art. 50). By letter of 22 April 1991 the Secretary to the Commission informed him that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing.
��������������������������� Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ������������������������ Agent ,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.