Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
|
As is all too often, people not seeing past the headline.
Quote:
In their ruling on Thursday, the judges said the case was inadmissible because Mr Lee had not invoked his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights "at any point in the domestic proceedings" in the UK courts.
The judges decided that in order for a complaint to be admissible, "the Convention arguments must be raised explicitly or in substance before the domestic authorities".
"By relying solely on domestic law, the applicant had deprived the domestic courts of the opportunity to address any Convention issues raised, instead asking the court to usurp the role of the domestic courts.
...
Mr Lee's lawyer, Ciaran Moynagh, said the ruling was a missed opportunity, and that Mr Lee was considering whether a fresh case could be pursued in the UK.
|
Once he does that in the UK, it starts all over again. The grounds used to bring the case to the ECHR, hadn't been brought before the UK courts.
Ultimately they didn't discriminate against him as a customer, they just weren't prepared to produce that specific item. Just as halal-only Subways are (illegally) allowed to operate.