CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 novembre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 180 December 2014 Hoon v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 14832/11 Decision 13.11.2014 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Publication of parliamentary investigation into conduct of former Minister: inadmissible Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Complaints relating to parliamentary investigation into conduct of former Minister: inadmissible Facts – The case concerned the investigation by parliamentary authorities into the applicant, a former government minister, after he had been involved in an undercover ‘sting’ operation by a journalist posing as a prospective business associate. During the sting operation the applicant was recorded as stating that he was willing to use knowledge and contacts gained during his period as a minister and as a special advisor to the Secretary General of NATO for financial reward. Details were subsequently published by a newspaper and broadcast in a television documentary. Following a formal complaint by an opposition member of parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards issued a report on 22   November 2010 in which he found that the applicant had breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. The report was passed to the Standards and Privileges Committee, which agreed with the Commissioner and recommended that the applicant apologise to the House of Commons and that his entitlement to a House of Commons photo pass be revoked for five years. The Committee’s report was approved by resolution of the House of Commons. The matter received extensive attention from the media. In his application to the European Court, the applicant alleged a number of violations of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention in respect of the decisions of the Commissioner, as endorsed by the Committee and the House of Commons, and complained that he had been denied access to a court to challenge the legality of the parliamentary proceedings and the sanctions imposed. He also complained under Article   8 that the widely publicised decision of the Commissioner had violated his private life. Law – Article 6 § 1: It was well established under the Court’s case-law that the right to stand for election and to keep one’s seat was a political right and not a “civil” one within the meaning of Article 6 §   1. Disputes relating to the arrangements for the exercise of a parliamentary seat lay outside the scope of that provision. Accordingly, the parliamentary proceedings in the applicant’s case, which were concerned with investigating possible breaches of the Code of Conduct of Members of Parliament, did not attract the application of Article 6 §   1, since they did not determine, or give rise to, a dispute as to his “civil” rights for the purposes of that provision. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). Article 8: The damage caused to the applicant’s reputation by the investigation and report constituted interference with his right to respect for his private life. Since it followed the procedure set out in the House of Commons’ internal rules the interference was in accordance with law. Parliamentary immunity such as exists in the United Kingdom pursued the legitimate aims of protecting free speech in Parliament and maintaining the separation of powers between the legislative and the judiciary. In the specific circumstances of the case there was also a legitimate public interest for the public in knowing the outcome of the Parliamentary investigation into a complaint about the applicant’s conduct as a member of parliament, which would have been undermined if the proceedings had not been public in nature and the reports disseminated. The procedure had allowed the applicant a fair opportunity to put his case and defend his interests both as a public-office holder, and as a private individual. The reduced level of legal protection of the right to reputation resulting from the rule of parliamentary immunity under British law was consistent with and reflected generally recognised rules within Contracting States, the Council of Europe and the European Union and could not in principle be regarded as a disproportionate restriction on the right to respect for private life. In any event, the facts relative to the interference were already in the public domain as a result of the newspaper article and the television programme and the applicant could have challenged the factual allegation by bringing proceedings against the newspaper or the broadcaster. Accordingly, in making public the findings of the parliamentary investigation and according immunity to the relevant proceedings in Parliament, the respondent State had remained within its margin of appreciation. The interference was thus not disproportionate. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes