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
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.
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
 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.
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