All at a timely pace (one mustn't rush these things) of about 3 years.
....and specifying that only eggs produced at a poultry unit in Sp'Coynoinautchi ( coincidentally owned by a cousin of enquiry Chairman) met the standard prescribed.
Mentioning the European Convention on Human Rights, following a line from another thread - I had a look at the European Council's webite
Accession of the EU - Information
Where I found this - in relation to sagefuarding the Rights of Roma and Traveller families across Europe :
Factsheet – Roma and Travellers 22
Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia 11 October 2016
This case concerned the demolition of houses and the forced eviction of people of Roma origin who lived in a village in the Kaliningrad Region. The applicants alleged in particular 5. See also the judgment on just satisfaction in this case delivered by the Court on 28 April 2016. that their eviction and the demolition of their homes had infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and home. They also complained of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Lastly, they alleged that the interviews that some of them had had with the police had hindered the exercise of their right of individual application.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the Convention, finding that the applicants had not, in the proceedings with regard to the demolition of their homes, had the benefit of an examination of the proportionality of the interference, in compliance with the requirements of Article 8, and that the national authorities had not conducted genuine consultations with the applicants about possible rehousing options, on the basis of their needs and prior to their forcible eviction.
As to the applicants’ allegation of propriety interests with regard to their homes, the Court considered that these had not been sufficiently weighty and established to constitute a substantive interest and hence “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It therefore declared this part of the complaint inadmissible. Further, with regard to the destruction of moveable property during the operation to demolish the houses, the Court noted that the applicants had neither submitted a complaint nor applied to the national courts for compensation. It therefore rejected this part of the complaint for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies.
Lastly, in the light of the case file, the Court held that the Russian authorities had not hindered the applicants in the exercise of their right of individual application. It consequently held that Russia had not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right of individual application) of the Convention.
Russia is a signatory to the ECHR - at least until it suits Putin not to be
The ECHR's remit is therefore considerably wider than the EU - and presumably also covers that bit of Ukraine which is currently occupied by Russia, not to mention:
Which all makes me wonder how far 12 black robed juges sat in the palatial splendour of Strasbourg genuinely believe their writ runs ?
Further, given that the ECHR was not adopted until 1950 - and only became binding on the UK when we joined the European Community(Common Market) in 1973 - will there be any attempt by UK to push back on claims under the ECHR, post January 2021 ?