CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 novembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     801   7.11.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ON JUST SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF KINGSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Wednesday 7 November 2001 at 9.00 a.m.   The hearing will focus on the question of damages and costs in the case, which was referred to the Grand Chamber following a request by the applicant, who disputed the Court’s findings under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in its Chamber judgment of 7 November 2000.   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by an United Kingdom national, Max Myer Kingsley, who was born in 1933 and lives in London.   Summary of the facts   The Gaming Board (“the Board”) is a statutory body established to regulate the gaming industry in the United Kingdom under the Gaming Act 1968.   The applicant was chief executive of a company which owned and ran six casinos in London. On 6 June 1991 four of the casinos were raided by the police on suspicion of offences under section 16 of the 1968 Act, which forbids giving credit for gambling. In March 1992, the Board and the police applied for the cancellation of the licences which allowed the applicant’s casinos to operate. To prevent this, the applicant resigned as managing director and in October 1992 the Board withdrew its application for the cancellation of the licences. A month later the Chairwoman of the Board made statements in a speech indicating that she and the Board regarded the applicant as not a fit and proper person to have conduct of a casino. At a meeting of all five members of the Board on 21 January 1993, it was decided that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to run a casino company.   On 23 April 1993 the Board informed the applicant that it intended to revoke his certificate under section 19 of the 1968 Act (anyone who manages a casino must have a section 19 certificate, which will be granted only to someone considered by the Board to be a “fit and proper person”). After an eight-day hearing in April 1994, before three of the five members of the Board, the applicant’s section 19 certificate was revoked.   The applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of that decision, claiming inter alia that the Board was biased against him. The High Court applied a test based on whether there had been a real danger of injustice as a result of bias, and found that there had not. It added moreover that, even if there had been unconscious bias, the “doctrine of necessity” applied. This meant that because the decision necessarily had to be taken by the Board (because there was no other body with jurisdiction) and efforts had been made to minimise the effects of any potential bias, the decision could not be impugned for bias. The substantive complaints against the Board’s decision were dismissed on the basis of the Wednesbury principles (no irrational or unreasonable decision justifying judicial review). The applicant’s request for leave to appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal, which in particular confirmed the High Court’s application of the doctrine of necessity.   Procedure   In its Chamber judgment of 7 November 2000, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing before an independent tribunal) of the Convention in that the Gaming Board did not present the necessary appearance of impartiality, and that the subsequent judicial review was not sufficiently broad to remedy this defect. Under Article 41, the Court awarded the applicant 13,500 pounds sterling (GBP) for costs and expenses concerning the proceedings in Strasbourg. The Court found that it could not speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had they been in conformity with Article 6, and that no causal link between the violation and the applicant's claim for pecuniary loss had been established. It held, by six votes to one, that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.   The applicant disputed the Court’s finding under Article 41 and requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 (referral to the grand Chamber). On 17 January 2001 the Panel of the Grand Chamber decided to refer the case.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), substitute judges ,   and also Maud de Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar . Representatives of the parties   Government:   Christopher Whomersley , Agent , Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General, Philip Sales , Mark Shaw , Counsel , Jonathan Robinson , Lucan Herberg , Christopher Harper , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Christopher Greenwood , QC, Counsel , Jemima Stratford , Sarah Playle , Advisers .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   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 Strasbourg in 1959 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 Court.