CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 septembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; display:inline-block } .s9FCD06FE { width:40.05pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS                   664   25.9.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   ARTICLE 41 CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF I.J.L., G.M.R. and A.K.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing an Article 41 judgment [1] (just satisfaction) in the case I.J.L., G.M.R. and A.K.P. v. the United Kingdom (application numbers 29522/95, 30056/96 and 30574/96). (The judgment is available only in English.)   The Court decided, unanimously, to award a global sum of 40,000 pounds sterling for costs and expenses.   In its principal judgment in the case delivered on 19 September 2000, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the use made by the prosecution at the applicants’ trial of statements which they had been compelled under statute to give to inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no breach of Article 6 §   1 as regards the applicants’ other complaints about the fairness of their trial. The Court made no award of damages under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention but reserved the question of the application of Article 41 as regards costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   On 28 November 1986 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry appointed inspectors to investigate the acquisition of the Distillers company by Guinness following allegations and rumours to the effect that certain persons had engaged in an unlawful share support operation to ensure that Guinness’ bid would be successful.   In the first half of 1987 the applicants were interviewed separately by the inspectors on various occasions. They were required by law to answer the questions put to them. Failure to do so could lead to a determination by a court that they were in contempt and the imposition of a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years. Already in January 1987, the DTI inspectors notified the Secretary of State that they had found evidence of possible criminal offences. The Secretary of State required the inspectors to inform him of any matters coming to their knowledge as a result of their investigations. The transcripts and documents obtained as a result of the interviews with the inspectors were passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service after receipt and consideration by the Department of Trade and Industry. In the first week of May 1987 the police were formally asked by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to carry out a criminal investigation. The transcripts of the interviews were then passed on to the police.   The first applicant was charged on 8 October 1987 with nine offences relating to invoices he had caused to be submitted for advice he had given during the Guinness bid. On 13 October 1987 the second applicant was charged with eight offences relating to invoices which two companies, both wholly owned subsidiaries of the company of which he was director, had submitted for the loss on the sale of Guinness shares and for the success fee paid after the successful outcome of the Guinness bid. The third applicant was arrested in America on 30   September 1987 and was charged on his return to the United Kingdom with six offences relating to two invoices and the success fees which he had charged to Guinness following its takeover of Distillers. In total, seven persons were charged with offences in relation to the takeover including the Chairman of Guinness at the material time, Ernest Saunders.   The applicants and their co-defendants were sent for trial at the Crown Court in April 1989.   At a preliminary stage of the proceedings in the Crown Court, the third applicant requested that the interviews contained in the DTI transcripts be ruled inadmissible. The court refused his request.   At their trial the applicants, who were tried with Mr Saunders, denied any involvement in wrongdoing. The prosecution sought to prove the case against them by using the transcripts of the statements they made to the inspectors. At one stage in the trial the prosecution read out to the jury over a three-day period transcripts of the applicants’ interviews.   In August 1990 the Crown Court convicted the applicants on various counts of conspiracy, false accounting and theft and sentenced them accordingly. In May 1991 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeals.   On 22 December 1994 the Secretary of State decided to refer the case of the applicants and their co-defendants back to the Court of Appeal in the light of evidence which had not been disclosed at their trial. This evidence related to City of London takeover practices and had been disclosed to other defendants who had faced separate criminal proceedings arising out of the Guinness bid. On 27   November 1995 the Court of Appeal again rejected the applicants’ appeal and on 6 December 1995 refused to certify a point of law of general public importance for appeal to the House of Lords.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ) on the day of their delivery.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Commission. [1] 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.