Human Rights & Privacy

Authorities (14)

• Cossey v United Kingdom (1991) 13 EHRR 622; [1990] ECHR 21 [judgment]
  R. Ryssdal, J. Cremona, Thór Vilhjálmsson, D. Bindschedler-Robert, F. Gölcüklü, F. Matscher, L.-E. Pettiti, B. Walsh, Sir Vincent Evans, R. Macdonald, C. Russo, R. Bernhardt, A. Spielmann, S.K. Martens, E. Palm, I. Foighel, R. Pekkanen, J.M. Morenilla Rodriguez

  13 EHRR 622 - Human Rights; trans rights; earlier ECHR case upholding the biological test for sex (later overturned by Goodwin).

• X Y and Z v United Kingdom App No 21830/93; (1997) 24 EHRR 143 [judgment]
  R. Ryssdal, R. Bernhardt, Thór Vilhjálmsson, F. Matscher, L.-E. Pettiti, C. Russo, A. Spielmann, J. De Meyer, N. Valticos, I. Foighel, Sir John Freeland, A.B. Baka, M.A. Lopes Rocha, J. Makarczyk, D. Gotchev, K. Jungwiert, P. Kuris, U. Lohmus, E. Levits, J. Casadevall

  24 EHRR 143 - Human Rights; trans rights; (Historic) refusal to register father on birth certificate.

• Sheffield and Horsham v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 163; [1998] ECHR 69 [judgment]
  R. Bernhardt, Thór Vilhjálmsson, F. Matscher, A. Spielmann, J. De Meyer J, N. Valticos, S E. Palm, A.N. Loizou, J.M. Morenilla J, Sir John Freeland, M.A. Lopes Rocha, L. Wildhaber, J. Makarczyk J, K. Jungwiert, P. Kūris, J. Casadevall J, P. Van Dijk, T. Pantiru, M. Voicu, V. Butkevych

  27 EHRR 163 - Human Rights; trans rights; (Historic) held that the UK's refusal to recognize gender change was not a violation.

• Robb v Dundee City Council [2001] UKHRR 1135
  Lord Cameron, Lord Johnston, Lady Paton

  Human Rights; delay; excessive delay in disciplinary proceedings violated Art 6.

• Christine Goodwin v UK [2002] IRLR 664 [judgment]
  L. WILDHABER, President, J.-P. COSTA J, Sir Nicolas BRATZA, S E. PALM, L. CAFLISCH, R. Türmen, S F. TULKENS, K. JUNGWIERT, M. FISCHBACH, V. BUTKEVYCH, S N. Vajić, J. HEDIGAN J, S H.S. GREVE, A.B. BAKA, K. TRAJA, M. UGREKHELIDZE, S A. MULARONI

  Human Rights; trans rights; the ECHR ruled that the UK's failure to recognize gender reassignment violated Art 8 and 12.

• Goodwin v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 588 [judgment]
  ECtHR Grand Chamber

  Human rights; gender recognition; the failure to provide legal recognition for the gender reassignment of a post-operative transsexual violated Articles 8 and 12 of the ECHR. Led to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

• Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] 2 AC 467 [judgment]
  Lord Nicholls

  Gender recognition; pre-GRA case declaring that marriage law was incompatible with Art 8/12 for trans people.

• Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 2 AC 557 [judgment]
  Lord Nicholls, Lord Steyn, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale

  2 AC 557 - Human Rights; interpretation; s.3 HRA requires courts to read legislation compatibly with rights 'so far as is possible'.

• Begum v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 [judgment]
  Lord Bingham

  Human Rights; religion; a school uniform policy prohibiting the jilbab was a proportionate interference with Art 9 rights.

• B v A [2007] IRLR 576
  Lady Smith, H Singh, D G Lewis

  Unfair dismissal; where an employee is dismissed for a reason involving their private life, the HRA Art 8 right is engaged.

• Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] ICR 1450
  Underhill LJ, S Yeboah

  Direct discrimination; grounds; the two approaches. The EAT (Underhill P) drew together two House of Lords lines on what it means to treat someone less favourably on a protected ground. Where the criterion applied is itself inherently discriminatory, as in James v Eastleigh Borough Council, the test is causative: would the claimant have been treated the same but for the protected characteristic. Where the act is not inherently discriminatory, the question is the alleged discriminator's mental processes, conscious or unconscious, as in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport. On either approach motive is beside the point: a benign or well-intentioned reason does not save treatment whose ground is the protected characteristic. Now the standard framing of the 'reason why' question under s.13 EqA 2010.

• R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School [2011] EWHC 1314 [judgment]
  Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson

  Human Rights; fair trial; legal representation might be required in disciplinary hearings if career-ending.

• Eweida and others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37 [judgment]
  David Thór Björgvinsson, President, Nicolas Bratza, Lech Garlicki, Päivi Hirvelä, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vučinić, Vincent A. De Gaetano

  Human Rights; religion; the right to manifest religion (wearing a cross) was violated by BA's uniform policy.

• Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700; [2013] UKSC 39 [judgment]
  Lord Sumption, Lord Neuberger

  Human Rights; proportionality; established the four-stage test for justifying interference with a convention right.