CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 septembre 1999

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 10 September 1999 Kingsley v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 35605/97 Decision 14.9.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Applicant judged by statutory body having, prior to the proceedings, expressed its disapproval of him: admissible The applicant was the managing director of several London casinos. The Gaming Board, a statutory body regulating the gaming industry, found him not to be a fit and proper person to hold the certificate of approval required to hold a management position in the gaming industry. His certificate was accordingly revoked, after a hearing conducted in private. He was informed of the decision of revocation by letter. As a result, he found himself unable to obtain any employment in the gaming industry. He sought leave to apply for judicial review of this decision on the ground, inter alia , that the panel of the Gaming Board which had judged him was biased. An internal decision of the Gaming Board, in particular, revealed that, prior to the examination of his case, the Board, including the members of the panel, had clearly manifested their disapproval of the applicant. The High Court, which could not have remitted the case for re-consideration by the Gaming Board because of the "doctrine of necessity", rejected his application. It accepted that there was an appearance of bias, but did not find a real danger of injustice on the facts. The Court of Appeal agreed. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal, public hearing).   © 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