- Cited — The Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (on the application of) Joint Council for The Welfare of Immigrants 2020-04-21
“… particularly where the substantive right involved is a qualified right (Petrovic v Austria (European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) (Application No 20458/92) (2001) 33 EHRR 14 at [20]).…”
- Cited — SC & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors 2019-04-16
“…empts to argue that article 8 imposes an obligation to provide financial support for family life have met with short shrift. For example, in Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 EHRR 14 the Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that the absence of any financial assistance from the state to enable a man who took leave from work to look a…”
- Cited — SC & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors 2019-04-16
“…see e.g. Rasmussen v Denmark (1985) 7 EHRR 371, para 38; Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 EHRR 14, para 30; X v Austria (2013) 57 EHRR 14, para 98. In the domestic law of the UK it is now established that this proportionality test can be further formulated …”
- Cited — SC & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Ors 2019-04-16
“… will vary according to “the circumstances, the subject matter and the background”: see e.g. Rasmussen v Denmark (1985) 7 EHRR 371, para 40; Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 EHRR 14, para 38. In its judgment on the merits in Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 74, para 52, the Grand Chamber said:…”
- Applied — JT v First-Tier Tribunal 2018-07-24
“…ationship of proportionality” between the aim and the means employed to realise it: see e.g. Rasmussen v Denmark (1985) 7 EHRR 371, para 38; Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 EHRR 14, para 30. It is also well settled in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that states have a certain “margin of appreciation” in applying this te…”
- Applied — JT v First-Tier Tribunal 2018-07-24
“…ationship of proportionality” between the aim and the means employed to realise it: see e.g. Rasmussen v Denmark (1985) 7 EHRR 371, para 38; Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 EHRR 14, para 30. It is also well settled in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that states have a certain “margin of appreciation” in applying this te…”
- Cited — DA & Orss, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2018-03-15
“…s point. These were foreseeable results and in my view they cannot be said to be so unlikely or remote as to be characterized as tenuous. In Petrovic v Austria (2001) 33 EHRR 14 para. 27 the European Court of Human Rights held that the award of a parental leave allowance affected the way in which family life was organized because, when…”