{"id":221527,"date":"2019-10-26T15:00:45","date_gmt":"2019-10-26T09:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=221527"},"modified":"2019-10-26T12:18:05","modified_gmt":"2019-10-26T06:48:05","slug":"echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/","title":{"rendered":"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights<\/b>: The Seven-Judge Bench comprising of Yonko Grozev (President), Angelika Nu\u00dfberger, Andr\u00e9 Potocki, S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, M?rti?\u0161 Mits, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, and Lado Chanturia held that there was no violation of Article 10 and 6 of European Convention on Human Rights as claimed by the complainant in the facts of the case presented before them. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On 28-01-2010, the day after Holocaust Remembrance Day, Mr Past\u00f6rs, then a member of the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, made a speech stating that \u201cthe so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes<\/i>\u201d. In August 2012 he was convicted by a district court for violating the memory of the dead and for intentional defamation of the Jewish people. In March 2013 the regional court dismissed his appeal against the conviction as ill-founded. After reviewing the speech in full, the court found that Mr Past\u00f6rs had used terms which amounted to \u201cdenying the systematic, racially motivated, mass extermination of the Jews carried out at Auschwitz during the Third Reich<\/i>\u201d. The court stated he could not rely on his free speech rights in respect to Holocaust denial. He lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights on 3-07-2014 relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial). He alleged that the proceedings against him were unfair because one of the judges on the Court of Appeal panel was married to the judge who had convicted him at first instance and could therefore not be impartial.<\/p>\n

Freedom of Expression:<\/b><\/p>\n

The ECHR examined his complaint under both Article 10 and Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights). It reiterated that Article 17 was only applicable on an exceptional basis and was to be resorted to in cases concerning freedom of speech if it was clear that the statements in question had aimed to use that provision\u2019s protection for ends that were clearly contrary to the Convention. The ECHR noted that the domestic courts had looked at the speech in full and had found that the applicant had planned his speech in advance, deliberately choosing his words and resorting to obfuscation to get his message across, which was a qualified Holocaust denial showing disdain to its victims. ECHR held that Mr Past\u00f6rs had intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered. The interference with his rights also had to be examined in the context of the special moral responsibility of States which had experienced Nazi horrors to distance themselves from the mass atrocities. His conviction was therefore proportionate to his actions. They found that there was no violation of Article 10 and rejected the complaint as manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n

Right to a fair trial:<\/b><\/p>\n

The ECHR held that the involvement in the case of two judges who were married, even at levels of jurisdiction which were not consecutive, might have raised doubts about one of the judge\u2019s lacking impartiality. It was also difficult to understand how the applicant\u2019s complaint of bias could have been deemed as inadmissible in the Court of Appeal\u2019s first review. However, the issue had been remedied by the review of Mr Past\u00f6rs\u2019 second bias complaint, which had been aimed at all the members of the initial Court of Appeal panel and had been dealt with by three judges who had not had any previous involvement in the case. Nor had the applicant made any concrete arguments as to why a professional judge married to another professional judge should be biased when deciding on the same case at a different level of jurisdiction. There were thus no objectively justified doubts about the Court of Appeal\u2019s impartiality and there had been no violation of Article 6.<\/p>\n

Judges Grozev and Mits expressed a joint dissenting opinion. [Past\u00f6rs v. Germany, Application No. 55225 of 14, decided on 03-10-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights: The Seven-Judge Bench comprising of Yonko Grozev (President), Angelika Nu\u00dfberger, Andr\u00e9 Potocki, S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, M?rti?\u0161 Mits, Gabriele <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":36441,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4631],"tags":[18501,8171,38067,38069,38070,38068],"class_list":["post-221527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-international-courts","tag-european-convention-on-human-rights","tag-freedom-of-expression","tag-holocaust","tag-prohibition-of-abuse-of-rights","tag-right-to-fair-trial","tag-special-moral-responsibility"],"yoast_head":"\nECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"European Court of Human Rights: The Seven-Judge Bench comprising of Yonko Grozev (President), Angelika Nu\u00dfberger, Andr\u00e9 Potocki, S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, M?rti?\u0161 Mits, Gabriele\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-10-26T09:30:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"830\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/\",\"name\":\"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-10-26T09:30:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":830},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility","og_description":"European Court of Human Rights: The Seven-Judge Bench comprising of Yonko Grozev (President), Angelika Nu\u00dfberger, Andr\u00e9 Potocki, S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, M?rti?\u0161 Mits, Gabriele","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-10-26T09:30:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":830,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/","name":"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg","datePublished":"2019-10-26T09:30:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg","width":1330,"height":830},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/26\/echr-holocaust-denial-not-protected-by-european-convention-on-human-rights-interference-with-rights-under-arts-10-6-must-be-examined-in-context-of-special-moral-responsibility\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"ECHR | Holocaust denial not protected by European Convention on Human Rights; interference with rights under Arts. 10 & 6 must be examined in context of special moral responsibility"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252233,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/04\/uk-european-convention-on-human-rights-protocol-comes-into-force\/","url_meta":{"origin":221527,"position":0},"title":"UK | European Convention on Human Rights protocol comes into force","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"August 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Protocol no. 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights has come into force on August 1, 2021. The development of Protocol no. 15 was led by the UK. It is an international legal agreement which makes a series of changes to the Convention. \u00a0 Key takeaways from the Protocol\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Legislation"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Legislation","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/foreign\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/human-rights.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/human-rights.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/human-rights.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/human-rights.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/human-rights.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":142011,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/07\/12\/belgiums-niqab-ban-does-not-violate-european-convention-on-human-rights\/","url_meta":{"origin":221527,"position":1},"title":"Belgium’s Niqab ban does not violate European Convention on Human Rights","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 12, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"European Court of Human Rights: In the matter dealing with validity of the ban on the wearing in public of clothing that partly or totally covers the face under the Belgian law of 1 June 201, the Court held that the ban does not violate the right to respect for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/european-commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/european-commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/european-commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/european-commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/european-commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6115,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/24\/court-justifies-maryam-rajavi-s-exclusion-from-the-uk-on-grounds-foreign-policy1\/","url_meta":{"origin":221527,"position":2},"title":"Court justifies Maryam Rajavi\u2019s exclusion from the UK on grounds foreign policy","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 24, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom - In one of the most controversial case, the Court upheld the exclusion of Maryam Rajavi, a dissident Iranian politician having close links with \u00a0Mujahedin e-Khalq \u00a0\u00a0which was justified on the grounds of foreign policy\u00a0 including concerns about the welfare of British personnel and interests\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Courts"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/foreigncourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6112,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/07\/25\/parliament-better-qualified-to-decide-issue-relating-to-ban-on-assisted-suicide\/","url_meta":{"origin":221527,"position":3},"title":"Parliament better qualified to decide issue relating to ban on Assisted Suicide","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 25, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"United Kingdom Supreme Court: In a matter\u00a0 concerning the debate about the law relating to assisted suicide, a nine judge bench was unanimously of the opinion that though the Courts have jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act, 1998 to determine whether the current universal ban on assisting suicide is compatible\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Courts"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/foreigncourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/03\/uk-sc-appeal-against-stay-on-proceedings-claiming-damages-until-conclusion-of-inquest-allowed-considering-proportionality-principle\/","url_meta":{"origin":221527,"position":4},"title":"UK SC | Appeal against stay on proceedings claiming damages until conclusion of inquest allowed considering ‘proportionality principle’","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United Kingdom:\u00a0A Bench of Lady Hale, President and Lord Reed, Deputy President and Lord Carnwath, Lord Llyoyd-Jones and Lady Arden allowed an appeal filed against the Judgment of Northern Ireland Court of Appeal concerning a stay granted on the proceedings for a claim of damages under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222386,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/22\/echr-flash-mobs-are-peaceful-assembly-of-people-staging-demonstration-without-prior-authorisation-does-not-necessarily-justify-interfering-with-a-persons-right-to-freedom\/","url_meta":{"origin":221527,"position":5},"title":"ECHR | Flash mobs are \u201cpeaceful assembly\u201d of people; staging demonstration without prior authorisation does not necessarily justify interfering with a person\u2019s right to freedom of assembly","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 22, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): A Seven Judge Bench of Paul Lemmens (President), Georgios A. Serghides, Helen Keller, Dmitry Dedov, Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, Gilberto Felici, and Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m unanimously held that the respondent was in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights.\u00a0 The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/C03HBD_2320723b.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221527\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/36441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}