“The number of appeals against deprivation of liberty orders has surged in the aftermath of a controversial Court of Protection case championed by The Independent, new figures show.”
The Independent, 2nd January 2012
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“When assessing whether a patient’s care deprives him or her of their liberty, and thereby entitles them to the procedural protections under Article 5 (4) ECHR, the right to liberty, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the appropriate comparator is an individual with the same disabilities and difficulties who is not in care. The court also provided useful general guidance for deprivation of liberty cases.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th November 2011
Source: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Protestors have to put up with ‘sensible and good natured’ controls by the authorities as a limitation on their rights to free expression and assembly, the Divisional Court has ruled.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th November 2011
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
St Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 806; [2011] WLR (D) 226
“A Union citizen who, when within the United Kingdom, ceased to work in circumstances other than those set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive was not a ‘worker’ entitled to the relevant ‘right of residence’ for the purposes of article 7(1)(a) of the Directive; and pregnancy had deliberately been excluded from the conditions in which the status of worker was retained despite a cessation of work.”
WLR Daily, 13th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bartlett and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Case (C-537/09); [2011] WLR (D) 158
“The mobility component of disability living allowance constituted a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of article 4(2a) of and Annex IIa to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 and Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 631/2005, and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 as amended by Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 647/2005. The provisions in article 10a of the Regulation and of the amended Regulation making the award of this benefit subject to conditions of residence and presence within the awarding member state were not contrary to the provisions of free movement of persons.”
WLR Daily, 5th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-434/09); [2011] WLR (D) 153
“Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC was not applicable to a European Union citizen who had never exercised their right of free movement, who had always resided in a member state of which they were a national and who was also a national of another member state. Article 21FEU of the FEU Treaty was likewise not applicable to a European Union citizen in such circumstances provided the situation of that citizen did not include the application of measures by a member state that would have the effect of depriving them of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as a Union citizen.”
WLR Daily, 5th MAy 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton (Case C-424/09); [2011] WLR (D) 128
“The mechanisms for the recognition of higher education diplomas pursuant to article 3(b) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended, were applicable where the profession at issue was a regulated professional activity within the meaning of the second sub-paragraph of article 1(d) of the Directive in the member state of origin, irrespective of whether the person concerned was or was not a full member of the professional association or organisation concerned. In order for professional experience to be taken into account for the purposes of recognition under article 3(b) certain specific conditions had to be satisfied.”
WLR Daily, 5th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“National legislation totally prohibiting the members of a regulated profession from engaging in canvassing was contrary to article 24(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p 36).”
WLR Daily, 5th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln (Case C-450/09); [2011] WLR (D) 121
“National legislation which allowed a resident taxpayer to deduct the annuities paid to a relative who had transferred immovable property to him, from the rental income derived from that property, but did not grant such a deduction to a non-resident taxpayer, was contrary to article 63FEU of the FEU Treaty in so far as the undertaking to pay those annuities resulted from the transfer of that property.”
WLR Daily, 31st March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
European Commission v Italian Republic (Case C-565/08); [2011] WLR (D) 118
“Mandatory national provisions obliging lawyers to comply with maximum tariffs, in all cases where there was no conditional fee agreement or no special agreement between lawyer and client, were not contrary to articles 43EC and 49EC of the EC Treaty.”
WLR Daily, 29th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Proceedings brought by Peñarroja Fa (Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09); [2011] WLR (D) 98
“A duty entrusted by a court, in relation to specific matters within the context of a dispute before it, to a professional who had been appointed as a court expert translator constituted the provision of services for the purposes of article 50EC of the EC Treaty (now article 57FEU of the FEU Treaty)). The activities of court experts in the field of translation did not constitute activities which were connected with the ‘exercise of official authority’ for the purposes of the first paragraph of article 45EC of the EC Treaty (now article 51FEU of the FEU Treaty). Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precluded (a) national legislation under which (i) enrolment in a register of court expert translators was subject to conditions concerning qualifications but (ii) the interested parties could not obtain knowledge of the reasons for the decision taken and that decision was not open to effective judicial scrutiny enabling its legality to be reviewed, inter alia, with regard to its compliance with the requirement under European Union law that the qualifications obtained and recognised in other member states had to have been properly taken into account; and (b) a requirement that no person might be enrolled in a national register of court experts as a translator unless he could prove that he had been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a particular national court, where such a requirement was found to prevent the qualification obtained by a person and recognised in that another member state from being duly taken into account for the purposes of determining whether that qualification might attest to skills equivalent to those normally expected of a person who had been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by the member state in which the expert was seeking enrolment. The duties of court expert translators, as discharged by experts enrolled in a national register were not covered by the definition of ‘regulated profession’ set out in article 3(1)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36/EC of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p 22).”
WLR Daily, 17th March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Articles 56FEU and 57FEU of the FEU Treaty did not preclude a member state from making the hiring out on its territory of workers who were Polish nationals subject to the obtaining of a work permit during the transitional period provided for in paragraph 2 of Chapter 2 of Annex XII to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L236, p 33). The hiring out of workers, within the meaning of article 1(3)(c) of Parliament and Council Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L18, p1), was a service provided for remuneration in respect of which the worker who had been hired out remained in the employ of the undertaking providing the service, no contract of employment having been entered into with the user undertaking.”
WLR Daily, 15th February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Control orders involving a curfew lasting 16 hours a day violate fundamental rights, the supreme court was told today as it heard a case attempting to change the use of the controversial measures.”
The Guardian, 5th May 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Pedro v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] EWCA Civ 1358; [2009] WLR (D) 363
“A dependent family member of an EU national who retained worker status should be treated as living in Great Britain under the terms of art 2 of Council Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizenship Directive) for the purpose of considering the dependent’s eligibility for a United Kingdom pension credit.”
WLR Daily, 15th December 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Where a person, in reliance, inter alia, upon art 3(2) of the Citizen Directive, sought to claim a right of entry and residence as a dependant of a Union citizen, there was no requirement to ask whether the claimed dependence arose from a need for the support of such a citizen.”
WLR daily, 26th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (Low) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 35 (Admin); [2009] WLR (D) 15
“A worker, who was a national of a non member state, sent by a service provider exercising its freedom to provide services pursuant to art 49 EC, from one member state to another had to be lawfully resident in the sending member state in order to acquire any rights under art 49 EC.”
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024