A v United Kingdom [2003] 36 EHRR 51
Court: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Facts: The applicant, a resident of social housing, was subjected to racial abuse and relocated by the housing association. During a parliamentary debate on housing policies, an MP referred to the applicant as a "neighbour from hell" and accused her of criminal activities. The MP did not verify these claims with the applicant, leading to public abuse and media attention. The applicant argued that the MP’s statements, protected by Parliamentary privilege, infringed her rights under the ECHR.
Issue: Whether the protection of Parliamentary privilege under Article 6 of the ECHR, specifically the right to a fair hearing, and Article 8, the right to respect for private life, was compatible with the rights guaranteed by the ECHR.
Held: The ECtHR ruled that the restrictions imposed by Parliamentary privilege did not violate the applicant’s rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. The court affirmed the importance of protecting free speech in Parliament, even when it results in serious interference with an individual's private life. The absolute immunity enjoyed by MPs for their statements was deemed necessary to uphold parliamentary functions and public debate, despite the impact on the applicant.
Key Judicial Statement: Judge Costa emphasized that Parliamentary privilege serves a critical public interest, justifying the denial of legal redress for statements made by MPs. The ECtHR concluded that the immunity provided to MPs under parliamentary privilege does not infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the ECHR, despite the severe personal impact on the applicant.
💡Leveluplaw: The case illustrates the tension between protecting parliamentary freedom of speech and ensuring individual rights under the ECHR. It highlights that while Parliamentary privilege provides essential protection for MPs, it can lead to challenges when individuals seek redress for defamation or privacy violations. The judgment underscores the balance that must be maintained between legislative immunities and individual rights, raising important questions about the scope and limits of parliamentary privilege.