Constitutional and Administrative Law B v United Kingdom

Questions: 1. Read the case of B v United Kingdom (2006) 42 EHRR 11 and answer the following questions. a. With reference to decided cases, briefly explain the extent of protections under Article 12 ECHR b. Summarise what the case B v United Kingdom (2006) 42 EHRR 11 is about c. Explain the relevant law being challenged in the case and the British governments arguments against the appeal. d. How does the court reach its decisions? Do you agree with the final decision? Answers: 1(a): The ECHR under Article 12 upholds right to marry as a Human Right. It states that everyone has the right to marry (Grigolo 2003). In B and L v UK (Familylaw.co.uk 2005), the ECHR observed, the Act of 1949 and the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 violates the Article 12. According to the Act it debars a father-in-law and daughter-in-law to marry if eithers former spouses are alive. This was a human right violation, as death of former spouses is contingency are as children outlive parents. 1(b): Case Synopsis: Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk, the petitioners sought the ECHR as they felt their right as per Article 12 was being violated by the existing laws in UK. The laws debarred them from marrying as they were daughter-in-law and father-in-law and their spouses were alive. The ECHR held that the laws in force violated their right to marry and found a family and adjudicated in favour of the applicants as per rules under section 4 of the HR Act, 1998 (Legislation.gov.uk 2016). 1(c): The main point of argument was based upon existing Marriage Act, 1949 and Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986 (Sections 1(5)(b) and 1(5)(c)). The Government argued that the parties were prohibited as per the First and Second Column of Part III, First Schedule. They were against it due to moral reasons and social impact of such act as both of their former spouses were alive. 1(d): The Court found that the laws in question were in violation of Article 12 of the convention and it applied Article 41 in adjudication. The judgment is agreeable as grounds against the applicants marriage was not justified (Brems and Gerards 2014), as the law itself was not sufficient in restriction. Thus we may conclude saying that the adjudication was justified. References: Brems, E. and Gerards, J., (2014).Shaping Rights in the ECHR. Cambridge University Press. Familylaw.co.uk, (2005).HUMAN RIGHTS/RIGHT TO MARRY: B and L v UK (Application no 36536/02). [online] Available at: https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/b-and-l-v-uk-application-no-36536-02#.VpC6MLZ97IU [Accessed 9 Jan. 2016]. Grigolo, M., 2003. Sexualities and the ECHR: Introducing the universal sexual legal subject.European Journal of International Law,14(5), pp.1023-1044. Legislation.gov.uk, (2016).Human Rights Act 1998. [online] Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/4 [Accessed 9 Jan. 2016].