CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juin 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. June 1998 L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom - 23413/94 Judgment 9.6.1998 Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Life Failure to take measures in respect of child of serviceman present during 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.   ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Scope of case under Article 2 Complaint concerning failure to monitor extent of father’s exposure to radiation not raised before Commission and based on events before United Kingdom’s Articles 25 and 46 declarations. Conclusion : no jurisdiction to consider this complaint (unanimously). B.   Failure to take measures in respect of applicant Article 2 § 1 enjoins State to take appropriate steps to safeguard lives of those within its jurisdiction. Cannot be known whether father dangerously irradiated – contemporaneous records indicate radiation did not reach dangerous levels in areas where ordinary servicemen stationed – State authorities between 1966 and 1970 could reasonably have been confident of this. State required to warn applicant’s parents and monitor her health only if it had appeared likely that irradiation of father engendered risk to applicant’s health – causal link between irradiation of father and leukaemia in child not established – no obligation to take measures in respect of applicant. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION No violation for reasons referred to in connection with Article 2. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLES 8 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION Complaints concerning failure to monitor father’s exposure to radiation and withholding of radiation levels records not raised before Commission.   In principle open to Court to consider complaint about failure to take measures in respect of applicant from standpoint of Article 8 – unnecessary since no separate issue arises. Conclusion : no jurisdiction to consider complaints concerning State’s failure to measure father’s exposure to radiation and withholding of radiation levels records (unanimously); not necessary to consider under Article 8 complaint concerning failure to take measures in respect of applicant (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