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 (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
The Commission’s request referred to former Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 8 of the Convention.
The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms L. Scott-Moncrieff, a lawyer practising in London. The British Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Eaton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In accordance with Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11, taken together with Rules 100 § 1 and 24 § 6 of the Rules of Court, a panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided that the case should be dealt with by a Chamber constituted within one of the Sections of the Court. Subsequently, the President of the Court, acting under Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, assigned the case to the Fourth Section.
On 8 March 1999 the President of the Chamber acceded to the applicant’s request not to have her identity disclosed (Rule 47 § 3).
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.