nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

18. An Uneasy Relationship: The Influence of National and European Fundamental Rights in English Private Law

verfasst von : Raymond H. Youngs

Erschienen in: The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There is a weak system of fundamental rights in English common law which could be removed by the clear wording of a statute, but fundamental rights in the proper sense were first acquired when the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. These rights cannot override statutes, but they do have a limited horizontal effect. This effect appears to be indirect and based on the public bodies bound by human rights under section 6 of the 1998 Act including courts and tribunals. This has, amongst other things, created a right of privacy, extended rights in tort and strengthened rights in family law. Besides this there are areas of ordinary law (case law and especially legislation) which create rights of the kind protected by fundamental rights systems (for example in equality law, consumer and inheritance rights, and law about availability of information). Some of this law emanates from the European Union.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Influence of Fundamental Rights in Slovene Private Law

Nächstes Kapitel The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law in the United States

See for example Smith v Director of Serious Fraud Office (1992), where it was held that an accused’s right to refuse to answer questions asked after the making of a charge (which is part of the privilege against self-incrimination) was taken away by s 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (questioning by the Serious Fraud Office).

See for example R (Burke) v General Medical Council (2005) (Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR did not advance argument or alter common law protection of life); R v Abdroikov (2005) (no need to distinguish between positions under Article 6 of the ECHR and at common law as to jury bias).

In Ghaidan v Mendoza (2004) the interpretative obligation under section 3 of the HRA 1998 was held to extend beyond cases where the legislation is ambiguous, and might require the court to depart from Parliament’s legislative intention; the court should only resort to a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 if a human rights compatible interpretation would be inconsistent with the underlying thrust of the legislation.

Moreham (2007, 374–375) considers the view of Lord Woolf in A v B (2002) at paragraph 4 that courts as public authorities could comply with their obligation under s 6 HRA 1998 by absorbing ECHR rights into private law (which Moreham considers to be indirect effect) and the view of Buxton L J in McKennit v Ash (2006) (which Moreham regards as direct horizontal effect and which has been widely criticised). Lord Steyn expressed the view (in Steyn (2005, 353, 354)) that, on the basis of Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004), ECHR rights do not have direct but do have indirect horizontal effect.

Leeds City Council v Price, Kay v Lambeth LBC (2006), per Lord Bingham paragraphs 42-5.

See further Sect. 18.2.2 below.

See Nagle v Feilden (1966) (refusal of Jockey Club to grant trainer’s licence to woman – court accepted she had an arguable claim for relief). This has now been superseded by statutory provisions preventing discrimination on certain grounds eg race, sex and largely based on EU law.

See also King v Michael Faraday & Partners Ltd (1939) (against public policy to enforce an agreement depriving director of sole means of support).

See Sect. 18.6.2 below. See also Shanshal v Al-Kishtaini (2001) and Sect. 18.3.5 below.

Dependants can include a wide variety of relatives: in particular a spouse or former spouse, civil partner or former civil partner, a person living with the victim for at least the last 2 years as a spouse or civil partner, and persons treated by the victim as children or parents; illegitimate children are to be treated as legitimate.

Rabone v Penine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012); Reynolds v UK (2012).

Wainwright v Home Office (2003). But see Wainwright v UK (2007).

JD v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust (2003), paragraphs 55–58.

See Directive 85/374 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

See for example Street v Mountford (1985).

But not always: those that may bind without being registered are called overriding interests.

Manchester City Council v Pinnock (2010).

Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Country Council (2010).

See generally the Children Act 1989 and Scott v UK (2000): “consideration of what is in the best interests of the child is always of crucial importance”.

Hermann v Charlesworth (1905).

Radmacher v Granatino (2010) relating to a German pre-nuptial agreement. See also Sanders (2010).

B and L v UK (2006) leading to the Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2007 (SI 2007/438).

Bellinger v Bellinger (2003) superseded by the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Gaskin v UK (1990).

EH v London Borough of Greenwich (2010).

Barca v Mears (2004).

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Jones (2003).

This section was held to be justified and proportionate and not a breach of the Article 9 ECHR rights of parents who agreed with corporal punishment in R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment (2005). Other corporal punishment might be allowed, but in A v UK (Human Rights: Punishment of Child) (1998) the caning of a child by its stepfather was held to be sufficiently severe to breach Article 3 ECHR and the state had failed to provide protection, as the stepfather had been acquitted on basis of reasonable chastisement.

This was stated to be because marriage had special status under Article 12 ECHR, there was no legally binding agreement between them, and there was a fundamental difference between their relationship and marriage or civil partnership.

Brinktrine, R. 2001. The horizontal effect of human rights in German constitutional law: the British debate on horizontality and the possible role model of the German doctrine of “mittelbare Drittwirkung der Grundrechte”. European Human Rights Law Review 4: 421–432.

Laws, Sir J. 1993. Is the High Court the guardian of fundamental constitutional rights? Public Law Spr: 59–79.

Moreham, N. 2007. Privacy and horizontality: relegating the common law. Law Quarterly Review, 123: 373–378.

Newman, S. 2009. Human rights and copyrights: a look at practical jurisprudence with reference to author’s rights. European Intellectual Property Review 31(2): 88–92.

Nield S., and Hopkins N. 2013. Human rights and mortgage repossession: beyond property law using article 8. Legal Studies 33(3): 431–455.CrossRef

Sanders, A. 2010. Private autonomy and marital property agreements. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59(3): 571–604.CrossRef

Steele, J. 2008. Damages in tort and under the Human Rights Act: remedial or functional separation? Cambridge Law Journal 67(3): 606–634.CrossRef

Steyn, Lord 2005. 2002–2005. Laying the foundations of human rights law in the United Kingdom. European Human Rights Law Review 4: 349–362.

Stone, R. 2013. The Modern Law of Contract 10th edit. London: Routledge.

A v UK (Human Rights: Punishment of Child) ((1998) 27 EHRR 611).

Ashdown v Telegraph Group ([2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2001] 3 WLR 1368).

B & S Contracts & Designs Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd ([1984] ICR 419 (CA)).

Barca v Mears ([2004] EWHC 2170 (Ch)).

Barton v Armstrong ([1976] AC 104 (PC)).

Blackburn v Attorney General ([1971] WLR 137).

Boustany v Pigott ((1995) 69 P & CR 298, PC (Ant)).

Bradford Corporation v Pickles ([1895] AC 587).

Burden and another v UK (App no 13378/05 [2008] All ER (D) 391 (Apr)).

Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457).

Campbell and Cosans v UK (Series A, No 48; (1993) 2 EHRR 293).

Derbyshire v Times Newspapers ([1993] 1 All ER 1011).

EH v London Borough of Greenwich ([2010] EWCA Civ 344).

Farley v Skinner (No 2) ([2001] UKHL 49, [2002] 2 AC 732]).

Gaskin v UK ((1990) 12 EHRR 36).

Ghaidan v Mendoza ([2004] UKHL 30).

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority ([1986] AC 112).

Hermann v Charlesworth ([1905] 2 KB 123).

Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire ([1988] 2 WLR 1049).

Horwood v Miller’s Timber Co ([1917] 1 KB 305).

HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd ([2006] EWCA Civ 1776).

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v UK Grand Chamber (2007) (app no 44302/02).

JD v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust ([2003] EWCA Civ 1151, [2004] QB 558).

King v Michael Faraday & Partners Ltd ([1939] 2 KB 753).

Leeds City Council v Price, Kay v Lambeth LBC ([2006] UKHL 10, [2006] 2 AC 465).

Manchester City Council v Pinnock ([2010] UKSC 45).

McKenna v British Aluminium ([2002] Env LR 30).

McKennit v Ash ([2006] EWCA Civ 1714, [2008] QB 195).

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20).

Nagle v Feilden ([1966] 2 QB 633).

Neville v Dominion of Canada News Co Ltd ([1915] 3 KB 556).

Ofulue v Bossert ([2009] UKHL 16, [2008] HRLR 20).

O’Shea v MGN Ltd ([2001] EMLR 40).

Osman v UK ([1998] 29 EHRR 245).

Peck v UK (App 44647/98, 28 January 2003).

R v Abdroikov ([2005] EWCA Crim 1986).

R v Lord Chancellor ex p Witham ([1997] 2 All ER 779).

R v Lyons ([2002] UKHL 44).

R (Burke) v General Medical Council ([2005] EWCA Civ 1003).

R (Malik) v Waltham Forest NHS Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health ([2007] EWCA Civ 265).

R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ([2005] UKHL 15)).

R (Woods) v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police ([2009] EWCA Civ 414, [2010] 1 WLR 123).

Rabone v Penine Care NHS Foundation Trust ([2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72).

Radmacher v Granatino ([2010] UKSC 42).

Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers ([1994] QB 670).

Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) ([2001] 2 WLR 480).

Re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others ([2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 AC 697).

Reynolds v UK ((2012) 55 EHRR 35).

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) ([2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 (HL)).

Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth ([1996] 1 AC 344 (HL)).

Rylands v Fletcher ((1868) LR 3 HL 330).

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Jones ((2003) The Times 13 August).

Shanshal v Al-Kishtaini ([2001] EWCA Civ 264, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 601).

Smith v Director of Serious Fraud Office ([1992] 3 All ER 456).

Street v Mountford ([1985] AC 809).

Stretch v UK ((2003) The Times, 3 July)

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council ([2002] 3 WLR 247.

Tolstoy Miloslavsky v UK (1995 Series A, No 316).

Van Colle v Chief Constable of Herfordshire ([2008] UKHL 50, [2009] 1 AC 225).

Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Country Council ([2010] EWCA Civ 1214).

Von Hannover v Germany (App 59320/00 (2005) 40 EHRR 1).

Wainwright v Home Office ([2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406).

Wainwright v UK (app 12350/04 26 September 2006).

Wilson v Carnley ([1908] 1 KB 729).

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No. 2) ([2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816).

Titel: An Uneasy Relationship: The Influence of National and European Fundamental Rights in English Private Law
verfasst von: Raymond H. Youngs
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25335-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-25337-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25337-4_18

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner