How many times has (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 been cited?

(2006) 43 EHRR 1017 is cited by 3 judgment(s) in this dataset.

(2006) 43 EHRR 1017

· cited by 3 · influence score 13/100

Is it still good law? No negative treatment found in this dataset — it has been cited without being doubted or overruled here.

How to cite

(2006) 43 EHRR 1017

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Cited · 2Followed · 1

Cited — Peiris, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal & Ors 2023-12-21
“…cial or economic grounds and the court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is manifestly without reasonable foundation” (Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017)…”
Followed — DA & Orss, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2018-03-15
“…The court accepted that following Strasbourg case law in such cases as Carson v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR 369 and Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 which, in turn, had been followed by the Supreme Court in the context of a sex discrimination claim with respect to welfare benefits in Humphreys v Revenue and…”
Cited — DA & Orss, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2018-03-15
“…impact on women of the benefit cap is proportionate; (iv) article 3.1 of the UNCRC does not supplant, dilute or compromise the Stec test (Stec v United Kingdom (2006) 43 EHRR 1017). …”…”