Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:36 pm

atticus wrote:
hairy wrote:is it not an important principal of any judicial process that all cases be dealt with to the same standard of care?
it is becoming increasingly the case that Courts need to ration their time, and that cases will only be allowed an appropriate amount of time, having regard to the needs of other court users. Low value cases get less attention.

Looking at our example (though I have looked at more of it than you), it is clear that they need to operate more efficiently. As with many things, if you do a half arsed job, then you often have to do it again (and again). In this case they have ignored the applicant's questions and therefore necessitated further correspondence.
If the court has compared the current case to established case law, then is it really too much to expect to be told which case law?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:49 am

Slartibartfast wrote:His main concern appears to be that without an open and reported hearing, UKgov may continue to behave unlawfully and pay off individual complainants who go to ECHR...

I have just noticed that this point was never properly answered.
His main concern is that the breach which took him to the court appears to be the consequence of flawed policies of UK.Gov.
What he would like is for the declaration to at least attempt to look at why those policies are failing.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:50 am

The State declared and the Court decided to strike it out. I'd be interested in your opinions...

As a reminder, from the "Policy and Practice" document

If the Court is to conclude that it is no longer justified for it to continue examining the case, the following non-exhaustive criteria must be satisfied by the unilateral declaration:
- Existence of sufficiently well established case law in the matter raised by the application.
- Clear acknowledgment of a violation of the Convention in respect of the applicant with an explicit indication of the nature of the violation.
- Adequate redress, in line with the Court’s case law on just satisfaction
- Where appropriate undertakings of a general nature (amendment of legislation or administrative practice, introduction of new policy, etc.).
- Respect for human rights: the unilateral declaration must provide a sufficient basis for the Court to find that respect for human rights does not require the continued examination of the application.


The declaration was as follows:
The United Kingdom Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 paragraph 1, as regards the length of the domestic proceedings.

Seems to me to be just a rubber stamp exercise.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:55 am

Is that all?

Is there nothing on: redress; undertakings; respect for human rights?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19528
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:28 am

That's it as far as a declaration. It goes on to talk about the payment... sorry, I'd got into the habit of treating it confidentially, but it's public information now.
In full:

“1. The United Kingdom Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 paragraph 1, as regards the length of the domestic proceedings.

2. In light of the declarations above, and having regard to the particular facts of the Applicant’s case, the Government offers to pay to the Applicant the amount of 7,500 EUR, an amount which it considers reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. This sum is to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the Applicant’s case.

3. This sum will be payable in Pounds Sterling at the rate applicable at the date of payment to the personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

4. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

5. Thus, the Government respectfully invites the Court to rule that the examination of the present application is no long justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”


One might blame the applicant: he missed the deadline for comments, but not by much and he had made plenty in the years spent trying to come to a friendly settlement.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby atticus » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:39 am

Why did the applicant not submit comments? It appears that he was given the best part of two months to do so.

Had he previously been made an offer of a "friendly settlement" (see, for example, this thread)? If so, how do the terms of the unilateral declaration compare with the terms of the offer of friendly settlement? If there is little material difference, then surely little time would be needed to review and comment, given the previous amount of time for reviewing the friendly settlement offer.

Does he now belatedly wish he had commented? What comment would he like to make?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19528
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:57 am

atticus wrote:Why did the applicant not submit comments?

He was somewhat distracted fighting bankruptcy proceedings brought about by a delay in processing his benefit application.
It appears that he was given the best part of two months to do so.

It does, doesn't it?
But read it again: you appear to be counting from the date that the UK informed the court that it was going to make a declaration. The applicant wasn't sent the declaration until a week or two before the deadline, when he happened to be away from home.
Does he now belatedly wish he had commented? What comment would he like to make?

He has belatedly commented, a day or two after the deadline. His comments were much the same as yours only in greater depth.
But even without comments, what respect does it show for a chaps right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time when it takes the responding party 2 1⁄2 years to not come to a friendly settlement?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby dls » Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:01 am

If the court has compared the current case to established case law, then is it really too much to expect to be told which case law


If there is a court judgment, no, but otherwise, yes. It is for the parties to present their cases and for the court to decide between them.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12129
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Feb 28, 2016 1:12 pm

dls wrote:
If the court has compared the current case to established case law, then is it really too much to expect to be told which case law


If there is a court judgment, no, but otherwise, yes. It is for the parties to present their cases and for the court to decide between them.

But other than the initial application, there has been no opportunity to present the case. It is not clear even if the respondent has presented one: it appears to have been all decided by the court.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9912
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Unilateral Declaration of misinformation.

Postby dls » Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:29 pm

At one point there wee huge numbers of discrimination claims for widowers. I am sure that of 4000 applications (say), 3,950 or so will have been virtually identical, and, whatever else might have been said, the respondent UK government accepted the claims, and was content to pay the award known to be appropriate.

What virtue was to be added by other than by a rubber stamp?
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12129
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Human Rights Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest