Eremiasova and Pechova v The Czech Republic [2012] ECHR Application No 23944/04 (16 February 2012)In this case the European Court held that the Czech Republic had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court clarified the positive duty of States to take active measures to protect those in their custody from harm, including self-harm, and reiterated the importance of providing an adequate, impartial and independent investigation into deaths in custody. It also commented upon the admissibility requirement that all domestic remedies be exhausted, noting that applicants will not be required to pursue domestic remedies which can only result in compensation when the efficiency of an investigation into a death possibly caused by the State is brought into question. The Court held that the State should pay compensation to the applicants.

Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 261 (14 February 2012)The applicants challenged planning permits granted for the operation of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminals in the UK, alleging that the marine risk of a possible collision in the harbour leading to the escape of LNG had not been properly assessed. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was a “coherent and comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework governing the activities in question” and that “extensive reports and studies” had been carried out in relation to the terminals. This was sufficient to fulfil the UK’s obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and homes under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

 Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy [2012] EWCA Civ 83 (10 February 2012) SummaryThe England and Wales Court of Appeal held that a hotel policy of providing double rooms only to married persons constituted unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation against persons in a civil partnership. The hoteliers submitted that the policy, a manifestation of their genuinely held religious beliefs, was protected by articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that, to the extent that anti-discrimination regulations limit such manifestation, the limitations were necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of same-sex couples.

Vejdeland & Ors v Sweden [2012] ECHR 242 (9 February 2012)The European Court of Human Rights has rejected an application brought by four Swedish nationals who were convicted under Swedish domestic law for making offensive and prejudicial comments against homosexuals. The applicants sought an order from the Court that the convictions violated their freedom of expression as protected under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The decision constitutes the first time the Court has applied principles relating to hate speech to comments made against homosexuals.

Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 (8 February 2012) The United Kingdom Supreme Court has extended the obligations that the right to life places on the state by holding that a hospital breached its duty to protect a voluntary psychiatric patient from the risk of suicide.

Axel Springer AG v Germany [2012] ECHR 227 (7 February 2012)The European Court of Human Rights has allowed an appeal by a newspaper publisher against an injunction preventing it from reporting details of criminal proceedings brought against a television actor. The Grand Chamber of the Court found that the injunction constituted an unjustifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2) [2012] ECHR 228 (7 February 2012) This case is an application to the European Court of Human Rights by Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband, Prince Ernst August von Hannover, following the refusal by German courts to prohibit further publication of photos taken of them while on holiday. The Court’s task was to determine whether the manner in which the relevant domestic laws were applied to the applicants infringed their right to respect for their private and family life (guaranteed under article 8 of the Convention). This required an examination of the balance struck between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression (guaranteed under article 10).

City of London v Samede & Ors [2012] EWHC 34 (QB) (18 January 2012)The England and Wales High Court upheld claims brought by the City of London Corporation for possession of highway and other open land in the churchyard of St Paul's Cathedral, London, where the defendants, part of the Occupy protest movement, had set up a protest camp. Lindblom J held that this was a "lawful and justified" interference with the defendants' rights of freedom of expression and association under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Vinter & Ors v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 61 (17 January 2012)The applicants, Douglas Vinter, Jeremy Bamber and Peter Moore, are currently serving life sentences for murder in the United Kingdom. Each has received a whole life order meaning that they will never be released from prison, other than at the discretion of the Secretary of State on compassionate grounds (such as terminal illness or serious disability). The three appealed their sentences to the European Court of Human Rights alleging violations of articles 3 (prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment), 5(4) (the right to speedy court proceedings to determine the lawfulness of detention), 6 (the right to a fair trial) and 7 (the prohibition of retrospective criminalisation) of the Convention for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court rejected each of these claims.

Abu Qatada v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 56 (17 January 2012) The European Court of Human Rights was asked to consider whether the Applicant's rights under articles 3 (torture), 5 (liberty and security), 6 (fair trial) and 13 (effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if he was deported to Jordan where he faced criminal proceedings. The Court held that there would be a violation of article 6 as there was a real risk that evidence obtained by torture would be used in a retrial. This is the first instance in which the Court has found that an expulsion would constitute a violation of article 6.

Stanev v Bulgaria [2012] ECHR 46 (17 January 2012)The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that a man who had been declared partially incapacitated and placed in a dilapidated psychiatric home had suffered a number of violations of his human rights. The Grand Chamber emphasised that detention other than in accordance with domestic law is a violation of the right to liberty. Moreover, an aggregate of factors such as inadequate living conditions and lengthy detention can amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. Finally, incapacitated persons must have access to the courts for judicial review of both their living conditions and their legal status.

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 8 (Admin) (11 January 2012)This decision of the England and Wales High Court held that whilst certain measures had been unlawfully perpetrated against young people in secure training centres, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant an order that the victims be identified and informed of their legal rights.