23 ينويو 2014

د.اشرف شمس الدين

آخـــر الــمــواضــيــع

دورة الاسعاف الاولي والانقاذ في المؤسسات الصناعيه تعقد في ماليزيا اسطنبول كوالالمبور | دورة مكافحة الحرائق وعمليات الإنقاذ تعقد في اسطنبول تبليسي كوالالمبور الامارات القاهر | دوره معايير الامن والسلامه المتقدمة وأساليبها الحديثة تعقد في الاردن دبي المغرب تونس | دوره حفر ابار البترول تعقد في الاردن دبي تركيا ماليزيا المغرب تونس مصر لبنان لندن | دورة صيانة ابار البترول من مركز المجد للتدريب تعقد في كوالالمبور اسبانيا اندونيسيا | دورة في مجال التقارير المالية فى الصناعات النفطية تعقد في الاردن الامارات تركيا لبنان | دورة تدريبيه في محاسبة التكاليف فى شركات النفط تعقد في فرنسا بريطانيا ايطاليا اسبانيا | دورة معايير المحاسبه الدولية لشركات الغاز والبترول والكيماويات تعقد في شرم الشيخ تونس | دورة الادارة الماليه لاعمال وانشطة الصيانة وخفض التكاليف فى الشركات النفطية/ماليزيا | دوره في مجال النظم المحاسبية المتكامله فى الصناعات النفطية تعقد في لندن باريس روما |
النتائج 1 إلى 2 من 2

الموضوع: X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3059/67 [1968] ECHR 11 (04 October 1968)

  1. #1

    افتراضي X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3059/67 [1968] ECHR 11 (04 October 1968)

    [align=left]THE FACTS

    Whereas the facts as presented by the applicant's solicitors and as
    appearing from the documents submitted by them may be summarised as
    follows:

    I. He was elected to Parliament in 1918 as a member of the Conservative
    Party; dissatisfied with the Government policy the applicant became
    first an independent member of Parliament, was again returned in the
    1922 and 1923 elections, and finally joined the Labour Party in 1924.
    In 1929 the applicant became a junior Minister in charge of
    unemployment, in the second McDonald Government. In this capacity he
    put forward a scheme for dealing with unemployment which was turned
    down by the Cabinet and, in 1930, he resigned from the Government.
    Having resigned from the Labour Party as well, the applicant decided
    to form a new Party which was later called the "British Union of
    Fascists". According to the applicant's statements, the British version
    of the Fascist movement was fundamentally different from Italian
    fascism, or German National Socialism. The Union's policy was to create
    a system of economic autarchy within the British Empire, to control
    private enterprises and to modify British constitutional law at a first
    stage by way of elections based on a vocational basis and, afterwards,
    by the abolition of Parliament itself and the concentration of all
    powers in the hands of the Government.

    At the outbreak of the Second World War, the applicant advocated a
    compromise peace with Germany and Italy. After the fall of France he
    was interned by the British Government until November 9143 when he was
    restricted in his activities until the end of the war. After the war
    the applicant reconstituted his Party under the name of "Union
    Movement" aiming at European union and European Government.

    The applicant further states that during his whole political career he
    was never anti-Semite, nor did he preach racial hatred or racial and
    religious discrimination.

    II. The applicant states that the British Broadcasting Corporation
    (BBC) has been conducting a campaign against him since 1958, stating
    that in the 1930s he wanted to emulate Italian and German dictatorship
    and that he was advocating racial hatred, anti-Semitism and violence.

    The applicant's particular complaint now before the Commission concerns
    a television programme broadcast on .. April, 1966, in which it was
    said that the applicant was an imitator of Hitler.

    The applicant states that, on .. July, 1966, his solicitors wrote to
    the BBC and requested that he should be allowed to make a statement
    through the same media through which the allegedly defamatory
    statements about him had been made, but that this request was refused
    by a letter from the BBC's solicitors dated .. September, 1966.

    The applicant who had commenced a libel action against the BBC in a
    previous case, which, however, he did not pursue did not bring a new
    libel action stating his reasons as follows:

    (a) according to Section 6 of the Administration of Justice and Act
    1933, libel actions have to be tried before a jury and no proper
    redress is obtainable as the court can only award damages but has no
    power to order the publication of a reasoned judgment with a view to
    restoring the reputation of the plaintiff;

    (b) when fair comment is pleaded as had been done by the BBC in the
    previous case, the procedure is extremely long, expensive and
    complicated. The cost of such proceedings would be prohibitive for him
    whereas the BBC on the other hand has several thousand pounds of
    licence fees as its disposal;

    (c) the matter would be decided by a jury which itself would be
    influenced by the television and press campaign.

    SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

    A. The applicant has inter alia submitted that, as a result of the
    official character of the BBC, the acts complained of are to be deemed
    the acts of the British Government. He has alleged violations of the
    following rights guaranteed by the European Convention:

    1. The libellous attacks on his reputation endanger his personal
    safety, and disrupt his family life, in violation of the right to
    respect for private and family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the
    Convention; He has submitted that the continuous attacks affected the
    health and spirits of his wife, Lady X. preventing her from
    accompanying him without risk to her health and safety on his visits
    to England from France;

    2. the impossibility for the applicant to obtain proper redress in the
    English courts for the alleged violations of his rights guaranteed by
    Article 8 of the Convention constitutes itself a violation of the right
    under Article 6, paragraph (1), of the Convention, of a failure to have
    his civil rights determined within a reasonable time by an impartial
    tribunal. The applicant has also contended that a trial before a jury
    would not be an impartial one, as the other party has at its disposal
    mass media fit to influence the jurors at its sole command;

    3. he has further alleged a "violation of Article 13 of the Convention,
    in that the British Government failed to provide an effective remedy
    before a national authority to the applicant and to amend the state of
    English law regarding libel so that it might comply with the provisions
    of the Convention".

    The applicant has claimed:

    (a) the cessation of the BBC's libellous allegations against him, and

    (b) the possibility to refute he libel by means of the same mass media
    through which they were made by the BBC.

    B. The respondent Government has maintained that it was in no way
    responsible for the programme broadcast by the BBC since the BBC is not
    a department of the British Government. The Government has inter alia
    made the following submissions:

    "[The BBC] is an independent corporation whose acts are, in fact and
    as a matter of consistent government policy, and in law in accordance
    with its Charter, its own acts and not those of the British Government.
    The duty imposed on the BBC by Clause 14 (3) of the Licence and
    Agreement is a duty to make specific announcements at the request of
    a Minister. It does not affect the independent status of the BBC nor
    does it imply that the content of regular programmes is in any way at
    the behest of the Government. The power retained by the Postmaster
    General in Clause 14 (4) of the Licence and Agreement is a reserve
    power of veto and not a power to dictate the content of programmes.
    Corresponding powers of the Postmaster General are contained in Section
    17 of the Television Act 1964 in respect of the Independent Television
    Authority which also operates under a Licence granted by the Postmaster
    General."

    The respondent Government has further submitted that the applicant has
    failed to exhaust all domestic remedies in accordance with Article 26
    of the Convention and that he has failed to show any reason which,
    under the generally recognised rules of international law would
    dispense him from this requirement.

    PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

    By partial decision of 8th February, 1968, the Commission declared
    inadmissible certain complaints made by the applicant with regard to
    a number of radio and television programmes broadcast by the BBC prior
    to 14th January, 1966, date at which the United Kingdom Government
    recognised the right of individual petition with regard to subsequent
    events.

    At the same time the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 45,
    paragraph (3) (b), of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof
    to the United Kingdom Government and to invite it to submit its
    observations on the question of admissibility.

    On 26th April, 1968, the respondent Government submitted its written
    observations on admissibility and on 23rd July, 1968, the applicant's
    solicitors submitted his observations in reply. At the same time they
    requested an adjournment of the case for three months in view of
    "certain negotiations".

    On 24th September, 1968, the applicant's solicitors informed the
    Commission's Secretary that their client had reconciled his differences
    with the BBC and that it would not be necessary to proceed with the
    application further.

    After having been requested to give information as to the terms of the
    settlement reached, they wrote on 1st October, 1968, as follows:

    "BBC has made recorded interviews with our client and has actually
    shown them on television in England.

    A further and longer interview with our client was also discussed to
    be concerned with his career which is the subject of his forthcoming
    book, and these facts would have appeared to have removed our client's
    cause of complaint."

    THE LAW

    Whereas the applicant states that he wishes not to proceed with this
    application further; whereas the Commission has considered this
    declaration in the light of its constant jurisprudence in cases of
    proposed withdrawal of an application pending before it; whereas it
    results from this jurisprudence that in such cases the Commission is
    called upon to ascertain whether there are any reasons of a general
    character affecting the observance of the Convention which would
    necessitate a further examination of the applicant's complaint; whereas
    in this respect reference is made to Application No. 2294/64, Gericke
    v. Federal Republic of Germany (Yearbook vol. VIII, p. 315),
    Application No. 2076/63, Wiener St*dtische Wechselseitige
    Versicherungsanstalt against Austria (Collection of Decisions, Vol. 23,
    p. 74);

    Whereas in considering the declaration of withdrawal made by the
    present applicant, the Commission has taken into account the written
    observations of the Parties on the admissibility; whereas it is true
    that the application raises certain important questions concerning the
    interpretation of the Convention on which the Parties have maintained
    different views; whereas the United Kingdom Government has particularly
    submitted that, in view of the independent status of the BBC as
    guaranteed by its Charter, the Government could have had no
    responsibility for anything said or shown in the programme concerned;
    whereas however the Commission finds that it is not called upon to
    determine this issue as in the particular circumstances of this case,
    there are no compelling reasons of a general character affecting the
    observance of the Convention which would necessitate a further
    examination of the applicant's complaints.

    Now therefore the Commission DECIDES TO STRIKE THIS APPLICATION OFF THE
    LIST[/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  2. #2
    تاريخ التسجيل
    May 2009
    الدولة
    جمهورية مصر العربية - الدقهلية - المنصورة
    المشاركات
    261

    افتراضي

    شـكــ وبارك الله فيك ـــرا لك ... لك مني أجمل تحية .
    إنّ الرَسولَ لَسَيفٌ يُسْتَضاءُ بهِ مُهَنَّدٌ من سيوف اللهِ مَسْلولُ


المواضيع المتشابهه

  1. X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3075/67 [1968] ECHR 13 (19 July 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 1
    آخر مشاركة: 07-23-2009, 10:41 PM
  2. X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC GERMANY - 3347/67 [1968] ECHR 18 (11 July 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 01:41 AM
  3. W., X., Y. AND Z. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3479/68 [1968] ECHR 4 (19 July 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 1
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 01:40 AM
  4. X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2699/65 [1968] ECHR 9 (01 April 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 2
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:37 AM
  5. TWENTY-ONE DETAINED PERSONS v. GERMANY - 3139/67 [1968] ECHR 15 (06 April 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:35 AM

المفضلات

المفضلات

ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
  •