§ Mr. Lathamasked the Attorney-General whether he will list all the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights since May 1979 which have been critical of established practices in the United Kingdom, where he or his representatives have appeared before the court to contest the action on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Attorney-GeneralSince May 1979 the following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have been given in which the Court has found the United Kingdom to be in breach of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case of Young, James and Webster—breach of Article 11 (freedom of association) arising out of the operation of the closed shop in relation to the applicants.Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom—breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to respect for religious and philosophical convictions in the provision of education) in relation to the refusal to allow the applicants to insist on their children being exempt from corporal punishment.365WDudgeon v. United Kingdom—breach of Article 8 (respect for private life) in relation to the prohibition in Northern Ireland of homosexual conduct carried out in private between consenting adults.X v. United Kingdom—breach of Article 5(4) (review procedure for lawfulness of detention) in relation to the detention of a mental health patient.Silver and others v. United Kingdom—breach of Articles 6(1) (right to a hearing in the determination of civil rights). 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) in relation to the stopping or delaying of certain letters written by prisoners.In all these cases the court did not find the United Kingdom to be in breach in respect of other matters complained of by the applicants. Findings by the court are made in the context of the particular facts of the cases before it, rather than on assertions of established practices.