1COR Resources 

 

Human Rights & Public Law Update 
 
Search Resources:
 
Advanced search

 

 

Our privacy policy explains how we use cookies. By using this site, we have assumed your agreement to their use.

Animals

 
 

Adams

The ban on foxhunting in Scottish legislation is not incompatible with Article 8 or Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention, either alone or in conjunction with Article 14


Aschan v Finland

The loss of exclusive fishing rights by landowners amounted to a "control" not a deprivation under Article 1 Protocol 1 and was justified by availability of compensation


Gittus

Without establishing a legitimate expectation to continuing levels of compensation, the claimants could not argue that they had an existing "possession" under Article 1 Protocol 1.


Imutran

The claimants were entitled to continued injunctions restricting publication of covertly obtained information about treatment of laboratory animals


Paslawski v Poland

The obligation imposed on landowners to allow hunting on their land could amount to an interference with their Article 1 Protocol 1 rights


Posti and Rahko v Finland

The lack of avenues open to professional fishermen to challenge government-imposed fishing restrictions could breach their right of access to court under Article 6


R (on the application of K and AC Jackson and Son) v DEFRA

Admin Court breaks with tradition by hearing oral evidence in judicial review proceedings


Secretary of State for the Home Office v British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and The Information Commissioner

[2008] EWHC 892 (QB) (Eady J)

For information to qualify as exempt from the Freedom of Information Act it did not have to be “given in confidence”; the notion of private information had expanded under Article 8 and 10 of the Convention and therefore Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, prohibiting the disclosure of a wide class of information, did not breach the right to information.


Silverton

The prohibitions on harassment imposed by legislation and common law constituted a justifiable restriciton on animal rights activists' interests under Articles 10 and 11.


VGT Verein v Switzerland

A commercial broadcast by a pressure group was a form of political expression that should be protected against censorship under Article 10


 

Copyright © 1998-2014  One Crown Office Row, Temple, London EC4Y 7HH
Web: www.1cor.com Tel: 020 7797 7500, Fax: 020 7797 7550
Information on this site is published subject to this disclaimer and privacy policy.
 

Website internet development system,
technical design and hosting by Enstar
Visual design by The Helm Creative