Perkins and R. v. United Kingdom
From DADEL
Case Summary
Perkins and R. v. United Kingdom
European Court of Human Rights
Applications nos. 43208/98; 44875/98
Judgment of 22/01/2003
The applicants alleged that an investigation into their sexuality and their discharge from the Royal Navy on the basis of their homosexuality as a result of the absolute policy against the presence of homosexuals in the armed forces that existed at the time violated their rights under Article 8, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
Contents |
Facts
The first Applicant, successfully employed by the Royal Navy, was summoned for an interview following information that he was a homosexual. He was questioned about his sexual practices and partners, his HIV status. At the outset, he consented to the interview an affirmed that he was homosexual. Following the 10 minute interview, he was "discharged pursuant to the Ministry of Defence's policy against homosexuals serving in the armed forces." The second Applicant, also a successful employee of the Royal Navy, was reported by a colleague to whom she had confided about a lesbian relation during her shore leave. On the basis of this information, she was woken in the middle of the night and summoned for an interview. The interview lasted 2 hours and focused on matters of an intimate sexual nature. The applicant's belongings were searched and several were confiscated. She was then also discharged.
Admissibility
The Application was found to be admissible.
Merits
Both applicants as well as the Government agreed, and the Court found that the present case did not differ materially from the case of Lustig-Prean and Beckett and Smith and Grady.The investigation into the applicants' backgrounds, as well as their subsequent dismissal following disclosure of their homosexuality, constituted an interference with their right to lead private lives, which violated Article 8 and could not be justified by the needs of a democratic society. The applicants' claims under Article 14 were not considered by the Court as it did not raise any separate issues.
Decision
The Court held that there was violation of Article 8 and that there was no vilation of Article 8 read with Article 14 of the Convention. It also granted the Applicants non-pecuniary damages and costs.