Helga Law Journal

Ukioqatigiit
Ataaseq assigiiaat ilaat

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 141

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 141
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 146 International Legal Research Group 147 remedying the violation of an individual due to a whole class of defendants being immediately disregarded. It is correct to say that it is indeed public authorities which are most likely to cause the most damage to the rights, a claim should nonetheless be possible against private individuals. This, therefore, removes “the protection of proportionality inherent in Convention law and often lacking in domestic private law”63 and leaves a dangerous way of allowing the state to organise its affairs in a way which hedges their liability and prevents effective remedies. A second challenge arises with the requirement that a claim can be made but only “if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.64” Section 7(7) of the HRA directs the reader to Article 34 of the ECHR, and allows the person to claim they are a victim under limited circumstances. Under the test, a person cannot bring a claim unless ‘he or she has been personally affected by the alleged violation'.65 The issue that a whole class of interest groups “will be denied access to the courts”66 has been mentioned and continues to affect many by acting as an effective bar to the claims of human right violations67 Once again it is clear here that the burden is placed upon the victim to prove that the right has been violated, a process which may deter some and discourage others to attempt the action for fear of failing to be a victim in the proper sense which as Clayton68 points out causes a chilling effect and imposes a restriction on the right of access to the court. Lastly, there are significant time limits imposed within s7(5) which requires the claim to be filed within a year of the act complained of. Alternatively, the court has the ability to increase this where it would be equitable to do so in the circumstances. This once again not only presents a difficulty within the complaints process but also implies that the violation is not deemed worthy enough in the long period of time and demonstrates of the arbitrary and highly discretionary system upon which the courts operate upon. Despite the disadvantages outlined above, the complaints mechanism envisaged in the HRA is still more desirable than the process that existed prior to the implementation of the HRA, which required individuals to take their claim to the Strasburg court and fight their battle outside of the UK. 2.2.2 Judicial Remedies Available Supposing that a claim is successful, the court then considers section 8 and “may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate”69 in relation to “any act (or proposed act) of a public 63 J Landau, 'Functional public authorities after YL' [2007] PL 630. 64 Human Rights Act 1998, s 7(7). 65 Knudsen v Norway No 11045/84, 42 DR 247 (1985). 66 Edward Gamier MP, HC Deb v. 314 col. 1065, 24 June 1998. 67 S Chakrabarti, J Stephens and C Gallagher, 'Whose Cost the Public Interest?' [2003] PL 697. 68 R. Clayton, 'Public interest litigation, costs and the role of legal aid' [2006] PL 429. 69 Human rights Act, s8. authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful.”70 Here, all circumstances must be considered within the making of such an award to ensure “just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made.”71 This can include injunctions which order a public authority to remedy the wrong through acting in a certain way or not acting in another way or award financial damages to compensate the individual if there has been a financial loss. 2.3 Testing the Effectiveness The procedure itself demonstrates the difficulties which are placed in the way of the individual claiming his rights have been violated. This, in turn, reflects the balancing act that the courts have to perform when assessing the violation. However, it must also be remembered that the decision of whether the right has or has not have been violated may have limited if any, impact. With relation to financial damages, the courts have been highly unreceptive to financial compensation within public law unless there has been an element of malice or the claim resembles one which could be successfully claimed in tort 72 and is in general considered to be a “residual remedy.”73 When deciding to award damages the court must also consider Article 41 of the ECHR, therefore are also required to take into account the ‘just satisfaction’ criteria within ECHR. This does not provide any set formulation or quantitative criteria however it most often uses the ‘equity principle’ which considers the seriousness of the violation, applicant related factors and overall context-related factors in order to deliver ‘flexibility and an objective consideration of what is just, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case’74. Injunctions, on the other hand, are usually seen as one of the most significant ways in which an individual may be seen to have had sufficient redress. The courts have previously shown to be careful and limited with imposing injunctions where free speech or freedoms of expression have been concerned as seen in Bonnard.75 This “exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction”76 has continued in later cases,77 however, has more recently time evolved78 to allow a more just and effective remedy to be awarded to individuals who suffered from a violation of rights. 70 Human Rights Act, s(1). 71 ibid. 72 I Leigh, L Lustgarten, ‘Making Rights Real: The Courts, Remedies, And The Human Rights Act’ [1999] 58(3) Cambridge Law Journal 527 73 ibid Leigh et al. 527. 74 S Altwicker-Hàmori, A Peters, T Altwicker, ‘A Peters Measuring Violations of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis of Awards in Respect of Non-Pecuniary Damage Under the European Convention on Human Rights’ [2016] Heidelberg Journal of International Law (HJIL) 16. 75 Bonnard V Perryman [1891] CA 2 JAN 1891. 76 ibid. 77 Laporte, Regina (On The Application Of ) V Chief Constable Of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55. 78 Herbage v Pressdram Ltd [1942] CA.
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108
Qupperneq 109
Qupperneq 110
Qupperneq 111
Qupperneq 112
Qupperneq 113
Qupperneq 114
Qupperneq 115
Qupperneq 116
Qupperneq 117
Qupperneq 118
Qupperneq 119
Qupperneq 120
Qupperneq 121
Qupperneq 122
Qupperneq 123
Qupperneq 124
Qupperneq 125
Qupperneq 126
Qupperneq 127
Qupperneq 128
Qupperneq 129
Qupperneq 130
Qupperneq 131
Qupperneq 132
Qupperneq 133
Qupperneq 134
Qupperneq 135
Qupperneq 136
Qupperneq 137
Qupperneq 138
Qupperneq 139
Qupperneq 140
Qupperneq 141
Qupperneq 142
Qupperneq 143
Qupperneq 144
Qupperneq 145
Qupperneq 146
Qupperneq 147
Qupperneq 148
Qupperneq 149
Qupperneq 150
Qupperneq 151
Qupperneq 152
Qupperneq 153
Qupperneq 154
Qupperneq 155
Qupperneq 156
Qupperneq 157
Qupperneq 158
Qupperneq 159
Qupperneq 160
Qupperneq 161
Qupperneq 162
Qupperneq 163
Qupperneq 164
Qupperneq 165
Qupperneq 166
Qupperneq 167
Qupperneq 168
Qupperneq 169
Qupperneq 170
Qupperneq 171
Qupperneq 172
Qupperneq 173
Qupperneq 174
Qupperneq 175
Qupperneq 176
Qupperneq 177
Qupperneq 178
Qupperneq 179
Qupperneq 180
Qupperneq 181
Qupperneq 182
Qupperneq 183
Qupperneq 184
Qupperneq 185
Qupperneq 186
Qupperneq 187
Qupperneq 188
Qupperneq 189
Qupperneq 190
Qupperneq 191
Qupperneq 192
Qupperneq 193
Qupperneq 194
Qupperneq 195
Qupperneq 196
Qupperneq 197
Qupperneq 198
Qupperneq 199
Qupperneq 200
Qupperneq 201
Qupperneq 202
Qupperneq 203
Qupperneq 204
Qupperneq 205
Qupperneq 206
Qupperneq 207
Qupperneq 208
Qupperneq 209
Qupperneq 210
Qupperneq 211
Qupperneq 212
Qupperneq 213
Qupperneq 214
Qupperneq 215
Qupperneq 216
Qupperneq 217
Qupperneq 218
Qupperneq 219
Qupperneq 220
Qupperneq 221
Qupperneq 222
Qupperneq 223
Qupperneq 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.