|Statement||European Court of Human Rights.|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||24 p. ;|
|Number of Pages||24|
|LC Control Number||82229595|
Get this from a library! Affaire X contre Royaume-Uni = Case of X v. The United Kingdom: [X; European Court of Human Rights.; Great Britain.]. Case of C.N. v. the United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UNODC No.: GBR Fact Summary. In , the applicant C.N. travelled to the UK from Uganda to escape the sexual and physical violence. Her relative S., who lived in London, helped her obtain a false passport and a visa to enter the UK, but on C.N.’s. CASE OF SUTHERLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. /94) JUDGMENT (Striking out) STRASBOURG 27 March SUTHERLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT (STRIKING OUT) 1 In the case of Sutherland v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges. X. v. United Kingdom: European Court of Human Rights Age of consent , November Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium: European Court of Human Rights Gender reassignment and its consequences , October Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (no. /76) European Court of Human Rights Criminalization or detention , May X. Ltd. and Y. v. United Kingdom (no.
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions). In view of the limited number of issues raised by the case and the absence of any detailed breakdown of the costs claimed, the Court considers the sum requested by the applicant to be excessive (see, for example, the Coyne v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 September , Reports V, p. , § 66). Making its assessment on an equitable. "Kingsley v United Kingdom, Judgment, Merits and Just Satisfaction, App No /97, ECHR IV,  ECHR , () 35 E IHRL (ECHR ), 28th May , European Court of Human Rights [ECHR]; Grand Chamber [ECHR]" published on by Oxford University Press. v. United Kingdom European Commission of Human Rights 13 May () 3 E.H.R.R. Application No. /78 Representation Berkson & Berkson, solicitors, for the applicant. * DECISION AS TO ADMISSIBILITY The Facts 1. The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in He is a steel worker by profession. 2.
This is a list of judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between the court's inception on 1 October and the most recent judgments. Cases are listed in order of their neutral citation and where possible a link to the official text of the decision in PDF format has been provided.. Unless otherwise noted, cases were heard by a panel of 5 judges. The failure by United Kingdom authorities to provide children with appropriate protection against serious, long-term neglect and abuse amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights so held unanimously, in a case relating to child care proceedings. A v UK  2 FLR Corporal punishment – Article 3 ECHR. Facts. A, a nine year old boy, was discovered to have numerous bruises following an examination by a paediatrician, which indicated that A had been beaten with a garden cane on more than one occasion with considerable force. This case is cited by: Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another ex parte IH HL (House of Lords,  U Bailii, Times Nov, Gazette Jan, See Also – X v The United Kingdom ECHR (/75, Bailii, Bailii,  ECHR 8.