CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juin 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law June 1998 McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom - 21825/93 and 23414/94 Judgment 9.6.1998 Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Access to records relating to applicants’ participation in Christmas Island nuclear tests: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF CASE Complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning lack of monitoring during nuclear tests of applicants’ exposure to radiation not raised before Commission and based on events in 1958 before United Kingdom’s Article 25 and 46 declarations – complaint under Article 8 concerning alleged harassment of first applicant declared inadmissible by Commission since introduced outside six-month limit – Court has no jurisdiction to consider these complaints. Complaint under Article 3 based on same facts (lack of access to documents) as, and falls more appropriately within scope of, complaints under Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13. II.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Government’s argument on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies closely linked to substance of applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8. Conclusion : objection joined to merits (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability: Not disputed. B.   Compliance: Not established that respondent State had in its possession documents relevant to questions at issue in pension appeals – in any case, open to applicants to apply for disclosure of relevant documents under Rule 6 of Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Scotland) Rules 1981 – since this procedure provided, which applicants failed to use, cannot be said they were denied fair hearing or effective access to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.   Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three); not necessary to rule on preliminary objection (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability: Applicants in doubt as to whether exposed to dangerous levels of radiation – issue of access to information on this question linked to private and family lives – Article 8 applicable. B.   Compliance: Where State engages in hazardous activities which might have hidden adverse consequences on the health of those involved, Article 8 requires that an effective and accessible procedure be established enabling such persons to seek relevant and appropriate information – State has fulfilled this positive obligation in present case by providing Rule 6 procedure. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four); not necessary to rule on preliminary objection (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Conclusion : not necessary to examine separately (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes