Greece v United Kingdom (1956)

The case of Greece v United Kingdom (1956) was a legal dispute brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The case concerned allegations by Greece that the United Kingdom, as the administering power in Cyprus at the time, had violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) during the Cypriot struggle for independence.

Greece argued that the UK authorities had engaged in practices of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on freedom of expression in Cyprus. The Greek government contended that these practices violated Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the ECHR.

The United Kingdom denied the allegations, asserting that its actions were necessary for maintaining law and order in the face of a violent insurgency led by EOKA (Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston), a Greek Cypriot nationalist organisation. The UK maintained its actions were justified under Article 15 of the ECHR, which allows for derogation from certain rights in times of emergency threatening the life of the nation.

The ECHR considered the evidence presented by both sides. While the Court acknowledged that the situation in Cyprus was difficult and that the UK faced a challenging security environment, it found that some of the UK's practices amounted to inhuman treatment and violations of the ECHR. Specifically, the Court found evidence of ill-treatment during interrogation and detention that violated Article 3.

The Greece v United Kingdom (1956) case was significant as one of the first inter-state cases brought before the ECHR. It helped to establish the Court's jurisdiction and its power to investigate allegations of human rights violations, even in the context of political unrest and security concerns. The case also highlighted the importance of the ECHR in holding states accountable for their actions and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, even in challenging circumstances. The findings in this case contributed to the development of the ECHR's jurisprudence on Article 3 and the permissible limits of state action in dealing with internal disturbances.