CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 novembre 1995

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .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. November 1995 Bryan v. the United Kingdom - 19178/91 Judgment 22.11.1995 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Fair hearing Proceedings to challenge enforcement notice before Planning Inspector and High Court: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] A.   Applicability Not contested. B.   Compliance 1.   Review by the inspector Proceedings before inspector, accompanied by uncontested safeguards, ensured applicant a "fair hearing" – however, fact that Secretary of State can at any time revoke inspector's power to decide an appeal – enough to deprive inspector of requisite appearance of independence – therefore, review by inspector does not of itself satisfy requirements of Article 6. 2.   Review by High Court Appeal on "points of law" not capable of embracing all aspects of inspector's decision. However, High Court had jurisdiction to entertain all grounds of appeal pleaded and maintained by applicant, whose submissions dealt with point by point – and inspector's decision could have been quashed if made by reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors; or if evidence relied on by inspector not capable of supporting a finding of fact; or if based on inference from facts which was perverse or irrational – such approach by appeal tribunal on questions of fact can be expected in specialised areas of law, especially where facts already established in quasi-judicial procedure. Having regard to subject-matter of decision, manner in which decision was arrived at, and content of dispute, scope of review of High Court sufficient. 3.   Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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