Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22   septembre 1995), le juge Sedley a qualifié la loi de 1994 de «   draconienne   », déclarant ce qui suit   : «   Pendant des

Lincolnshire County Council , ex parte Atkinson (22   septembre 1995), le juge Sedley a qualifié la loi de 1994 de «   draconienne   », déclarant ce qui suit   : «   Pendant des

Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22   septembre 1995), le juge Sedley a qualifié la loi de 1994 de «   draconienne   », déclarant ce qui suit   : «   Pendant des

Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22   septembre 1995), le juge Sedley a qualifié la loi de 1994 de «   draconienne   », déclarant ce qui suit   : «   Pendant des

Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22   septembre 1995), le juge Sedley a qualifié la loi de 1994 de «   draconienne   », déclarant ce qui suit   : «   Pendant des

anglaise ne prévoit aucun recours contre l’interception de communications, car "elle n’apporte aucune restriction générale aux atteintes à l’intimité de la vie privée en tant que telles" (au dire du juge Sedley

Hebburn Justices, ex parte Martin (31 juillet 1995, non publiée), le juge Sedley, de la High Court, a estimé que si l’obligation initiale de verser l’impôt de capitation revêtait un caractère civil, lorsque

Moysidou Xanthippi Thessaloniki Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 01/07/2022 12/07/2022 5,300   53825/21 02/11/2021 Yossef SELMI

Ltd ([2001] 2 WLR 992), Lord Justice Sedley indicated that he was prepared to find that there was a qualified right to privacy under English law, but the Court of Appeal did not rule on the point. 20.

Ltd ([2001] 1 WLR 992), Sedley LJ indicated that he was prepared to find that there was a qualified right to privacy under English law, but the Court of Appeal did not rule on the point.

Lord Justice Sedley gave the judgment of the court.

Lord Justice Sedley observed: “It seems to me that there is one issue which is capable of engaging the attention of this court.

Lord Justice Sedley, during the course of his judgment, expressed the following view (at paragraphs 55 and 56): “... more than one legitimate judgment - that of the community psychiatrist as well as of

On 21 November 1995, Mr Justice Sedley held that the decision to allow the Superintendent to retire had not been properly taken, but that he would not interfere with it.

Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22 September 1995), Sedley J. referred to the 1994 Act as “Draconic” legislation.

Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22 September 1995), Sedley J. referred to the 1994 Act as “Draconic” legislation.

    Lord Justice Sedley, during the course of his judgment, expressed the following view (in paragraphs 55 and 56): “... more than one legitimate judgment – that of the community psychiatrist

Lord Justice Sedley considered that while resettlement would be difficult if not impossible without capital expenditure, it had not been suggested on either side that the United Kingdom was under any obligation

Lincolnshire County Council, ex parte Atkinson (22 September 1995), Sedley J. referred to the 1994 Act as “Draconic” legislation.

   The English common law provides no remedy against interception of communications, since it "places no general constraints upon invasions of privacy as such" (Mr Justice Sedley in R. v.