Court : UK seizure of worker
Human rights judges today declared that the United Kingdom authorities were wrong to seize the wages of an Ivorian worker who used a false passport to gain employment.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK courts should have balanced individual property rights against interests of the general public, when taking action against Didier Pierre Paulet.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Paulet v. the United Kingdom (application no. 6219/08), which is not final, the court held, by five votes to two, that the United Kingdom was to pay Paulet 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 to cover the costs and expenses of Paulet’s lawyer.
The award followed the European Court of Human Rights ruling, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Paulet complained that the confiscation order against him had been disproportionate as it amounted to the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four years of genuine work, without any distinction being made between his case and those involving more serious criminal offences such as drug trafficking or organised crime.
The court found that the UK courts’ scope of review of Paulet’s case had been too narrow. Notably, they had simply found that the confiscation order against Paulet had been in the public interest, without balancing that conclusion against his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as required under the European Convention.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK courts should have balanced individual property rights against interests of the general public, when taking action against Didier Pierre Paulet.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Paulet v. the United Kingdom (application no. 6219/08), which is not final, the court held, by five votes to two, that the United Kingdom was to pay Paulet 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 to cover the costs and expenses of Paulet’s lawyer.
The award followed the European Court of Human Rights ruling, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Paulet complained that the confiscation order against him had been disproportionate as it amounted to the confiscation of his entire savings over nearly four years of genuine work, without any distinction being made between his case and those involving more serious criminal offences such as drug trafficking or organised crime.
The court found that the UK courts’ scope of review of Paulet’s case had been too narrow. Notably, they had simply found that the confiscation order against Paulet had been in the public interest, without balancing that conclusion against his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as required under the European Convention.
Comment