‘Prisoners “damn well shouldn’t” be given the right to vote, David Cameron said as he called for the powers of European court of human rights to be restricted.’
The Guardian, 13th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This is the last gasp in the saga on whether Mrs Pallikaropoulos should bear £25,000 of the costs of her unsuccessful 2008 appeal to the House of Lords. And the answer, after intervening trips to the Supreme Court in 2010 and to the CJEU in 2013, is a finding by the Supreme Court that she should bear those costs.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 11th December 2013
Abdullahi v Bundesasylamt (Case C-394/12); [2013] WLR (D) 481
‘According to article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L50, p 1)), in circumstances where a member state had agreed to take charge of an applicant for asylum on the basis of the criterion laid down in article 10(1) of the Regulation—namely, as the member state of the first entry of the applicant for asylum into the European Union—the only way in which the applicant could call into question the choice of that criterion was by pleading systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum in that member state, which provided substantial grounds for believing that the applicant for asylum would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 10th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A couple of years ago a lot of lawyers practising in housing, immigration and welfare benefits got very excited by the case of Ruiz Zambrano (European citizenship) [2011] EUECJ C-34/09. The reason for this excitement was that the ECJ said that art.20, of the Treaty, required member states to grant a right of residence to a third country national, who was the primary carer of an EU national, if a refusal to would result in the EU national being forced to leave the EU..More excitingly, this applied to EU nationals who had not left their member state, i.e. it would apply to the parents of British nationals.’
NearlyLegal, 9th December 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The recent confirmation by the Supreme Court that it was unlawful discrimination for Christian hotel owners to refuse a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple was of considerable interest as the latest in a string of high-profile cases involving religious belief and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and the first such judgment involving the highest court in the land). We have already provided a summary of the facts and judgment here, and our post on the Court of Appeal ruling can be found here.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Nordecon AS and another v Rahandusministeerium (Case C-561/12); [2013] WLR (D) 470
‘Article 30(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC did not allow a contracting authority to negotiate with tenderers tenders that did not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract as published.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 2002/74/EC of 23 September 2002) did not preclude national legislation which did not guarantee wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of an action seeking a declaration that the employer was insolvent, even where the workers initiated, prior to the start of that period, legal proceedings against their employer with a view to obtaining a determination of the amount of those claims and an enforcement order to recover those sums.’
WLR Daily, 28th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down today (Isis Investments Ltd v Kaupthing Bank h.f. & Elfar Adalsteinsson [2013] EWCA Civ 1493), the Court of Appeal has clarified the meaning and scope of “lawsuits pending” in Article 32 of the EC Directive on the Reorganisation and Winding Up of Credit Institutions (Directive 2001/24/EC). Charles Samek QC who acted for the successful respondent, Mr Adalsteinsson (acting as a representative party on behalf of high net-worth investors) explains the significance of the judgment.’
11 Stone Buildings, 27th November 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Habitual Residence) [2013] EWCA Civ 1434; [2013] WLR (D) 461
‘Where a child was habitually resident in Sweden at the time when the courts of England and Wales were seised of care proceedings relating to the child, the fact that there were no extant proceedings relating to the child in Sweden did not prevent the Swedish courts having jurisdiction under article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.’
WLR Daily, 13th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1493; [2013] WLR (D) 459
“Articles 10(2)(e) and 32 of Council Directive 2001/24/EC required a careful construction of the phrases ‘lawsuits pending’ and ‘pending lawsuit’ if one were to rely on the provisions in order to permit a departure from the general principle contained within article 10(1) that a credit institution should be wound up in accordance with the laws of its home member state.”
WLR Daily, 27th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Article 3(2(a) of the Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC did not give the right to the dependent relatives of an EU citizen in a member state to freely move and reside in another member state if the dependency on the EU citizen or membership of his or her household arose only after they had arrived in the member state.’
WLR Daily, 25th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘David Cameron made a fresh effort to assuage public concern about a wave of migration from Bulgaria and Romania on Tuesday when he announced a series of benefit restrictions on all EU migrant workers, including a ban on access to housing benefit for all new arrivals and a three-month ban before jobseeker’s allowance can be claimed.’
The Guardian, 27th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This week, there are criticisms over the delay of inquiries both into the mistreatment of terrorism suspects and the Iraq War. Meanwhile, discussion continues over the relevance of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for UK law, and a dying asylum seeker on hunger strike will not be released.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Dixons Retail plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: (Case C-494/12); [2013] WLR (D) 448
‘Pursuant to articles 2(1), 5(1) and 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC and articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who had fraudulently used a bank card as a means of payment constituted a “supply of goods” within the meaning of articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 77/388 and articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 and, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party undertook to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constituted “consideration” within the meaning of article 11A(1)(a) of Directive 77/388 and article 73 of Directive 2006/112.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This week, Chris Grayling and the Court of Justice go head to head over the domestic status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, while the ghost of Winston Churchill comes back to haunt the “United States of Europe” debate. Meanwhile, Theresa May’s plans to deprive terrorist suspects of their British citizenship are under fire, while calls for press accountability are repeated.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 20th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Confusion abounds about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights following Mr Justice Mostyn’s recent judgment in R (AB) v Home Secretary (in which he appeared to say the Charter puts into UK law all sorts of new rights British governments had wanted to exclude) and Tuesday’s reaction by the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling (who, it’s reported, is urgently trying to clarify whether the Charter ”applies in the UK”).’
Head of Legal, 21st November 2013
Source: www.headoflegal.com
‘A European arrest warrant issued by a government ministry in respect of a convicted person with a view to his or her arrest and extradition could be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA— and Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 which gave effect to it in the United Kingdom— if the ministry had only issued the warrant at the request of and by way of endorsement of a decision that the issue of such a warrant was appropriate made by the court responsible for the sentence or some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry which had power to issue an European arrest warrant of its own motion and had done so, or which had issued a warrant at the request of a non-judicial authority, including an executive agency such as a prison department, could not be regarded as a judicial authority for those purposes.’
WLR Daily, 20th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Maletic and another v lastminute.com and another (Case C-478/12); [2013] WLR (D) 444
“The concept of ‘other party to the contract’ laid down in article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p 1)also covered the contracting partner of the operator with which the consumer concluded that contract and which had its registered office in the member state in which the consumer was domiciled.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Pursuant to the freedom of establishment under article 49FEU and the freedom to provide services under 56FEU of the FEU Treaty, an economic operator in a member state could, before the courts of that member state, allege an infringement of the obligation of transparency under those articles occurring at the time of conclusion of an agreement whereby one or more public entities of that member state had either granted to an economic operator of that same member state a licence for services of certain cross-border interest or granted an economic operator the exclusive right to engage in an economic activity of cross-border interest.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025