CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 octobre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   529 27.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT EDWARDS AND LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, for the reasons given in its earlier Chamber judgment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 47,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available in English and French.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Martin John Edwards and Michael Lewis, are United Kingdom nationals. The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Woking (United Kingdom) and the second was born in 1953 and lives in Tonbridge (United Kingdom).   On 9 August 1994, following a surveillance and undercover operation, Mr Edwards was arrested in a van in the company of an undercover police officer. In the van was a briefcase containing 4.83 kilograms of 50% pure heroin. On 7 April 1995 he was convicted of possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He appealed unsuccessfully.   On 25 July 1995 Mr Lewis was arrested by uniformed police officers in the car park of a public house after he had shown two undercover police officers some counterfeit bank notes. More counterfeit notes were found when his house was searched. On 12 November 1996 he pleaded guilty to three charges of possession of counterfeit currency notes with the intention of delivering them to another. He was sentenced to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.   In both cases an application by the prosecution to withhold material evidence had been granted on the ground that it would not assist the defence and there were genuine public-interest reasons for not disclosing it. The judge had also refused a request to exclude the evidence of the undercover officers.       2.     Procedure   Mr Edwards’ application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6   September 1996 and Mr   Lewis’ application was lodged with the Commission on 16   May 1997. The cases were transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and declared admissible on 10   September 2002.   In its Chamber judgment of 22 July 2003, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained. It awarded each applicant EUR   22,000 for costs and expenses.   The Chamber reasoned that the procedure followed to determine the issues of disclosure of evidence and entrapment had not complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms and had not incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused.   On 21 October 2003 the United Kingdom Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [2] . A panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 3   December 2003.   3. Composition of the Court   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), András Baka (Hungarian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .     4.     Summary of the judgment   Complaint   The applicants alleged that they had been denied fair trials, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention, as a result of incitement to commit offences by agents provocateurs and the procedure followed by the domestic courts concerning the non-disclosure of evidence.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the United Kingdom Government had informed the Court that it no longer wished to pursue the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber and had confirmed that it were content for the Grand Chamber simply to endorse the Court’s Chamber judgment. The applicants had accepted the Chamber’s judgment and did not object to the procedure proposed by the Government.   Having examined the issues raised by the case in the light of the Chamber’s judgment, the Grand Chamber saw no reason to depart from the Chamber’s findings. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, for the reasons elaborated by the Chamber.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.   [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.