CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 mai 2002

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     281   28.5.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KINGSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Kingsley v. the United Kingdom (application no. 35605/97).   The Grand Chamber upheld, unanimously, the finding of a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing before an independent tribunal) and, by ten votes to seven, that this finding constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage (Article 41 of the Convention).   The Grand Chamber awarded, unanimously, 50,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for domestic costs and expenses and GBP 25,000 for costs and expenses before the Court and the European Commission of Human Rights.   1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by an United Kingdom national, Max Myer Kingsley, who was born in 1933 and lives in London.   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, among other things, 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.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   In its Chamber judgment of 7 November 2000, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 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. U nder 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. A hearing was held on 7 November 2001.   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), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges   and also Maud de Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaint In his application to the Court, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Mr Kingsley complained that the proceedings before the Gaming Board were unfair and that the review by the High Court could not adequately remedy the matter because of the restricted nature of judicial review.   Before the Grand Chamber, the applicant claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage - for loss of procedural opportunity, stress, loss of reputation and other psychological and emotional damage suffered as a result of the breach of Article 6 § 1 - and legal costs.   He claimed loss of earnings (GBP 1,868,000), loss of pension entitlement (GBP   2,500,000) and the loss of profits on shares in London Clubs which he was forced to relinquish at their purchase price. In addition, he maintained that, as a result of the Gaming Board’s decision, he lost his reputation, his savings and his marriage.   He also claimed reimbursement of the total cost of the domestic proceedings: GBP 526,017.48 (GBP 231,277.70 for the section 19 hearing before the Board, GBP 254,982.72 for the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, and GBP   39,757.06 paid towards the costs of the Gaming Board in the judicial review proceedings).   Alternatively, maintaining that approximately a third of the judicial review proceedings in the High Court concerned the issue of bias, he claimed reimbursement of at least a third (GBP   84,994.24) of the total High Court costs and at least a third of the Board’s costs in the High Court which he was required to pay (GBP   13,252.32). Claiming that the totality of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal concerned bias, he requested his costs of GBP 211.01.   He also claimed GBP 28,471.80 in respect of the Grand Chamber proceedings.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 Although the applicant had only requested that his case be referred to the Grand Chamber in relation to Article 41, the Grand Chamber recalled that cases referred to it embraced all aspects of the application and not just the issues disputed by the parties. However, finding no reason to depart from the Chamber’s findings, it concluded that, for the reasons indicated by the Chamber in its judgment (that the Panel of the Gaming Board lacked objective impartiality and that the reviewing courts’ jurisdiction was too limited to put right the deficiency), there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 41   Damage The Court observed that its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 did not mean that the Board’s decision to revoke the applicant’s section 19 certificate was not well founded or that a differently constituted tribunal would have found for the applicant. Moreover, apart from the matters which gave rise to the finding of a violation, the applicant did not contend that the proceedings before the Board and in the High Court and the Court of Appeal were unfair. He had legal representation at all stages of the proceedings, the Board heard seven-and-a-half days of evidence and argument and, in addition to the question of bias, the underlying merits of many of its findings were the subject of judicial review. After a hearing in the High Court lasting 16 days and the delivery of three lengthy and fully reasoned judgments, it was decided that the Board’s conclusions had not been unreasonable and should be upheld.     The Court did not consider it appropriate to award monetary compensation to the applicant in respect of loss of procedural opportunity or any distress, loss or damage allegedly flowing from the outcome of the domestic proceedings. The Court therefore rejected the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages.   Costs in domestic proceedings The Court considered that the hearing before the Gaming Board in April 1994 concerned   whether the applicant was a “fit and proper person” to hold a gaming certificate. As the costs of these proceedings were not incurred to prevent or redress the alleged breach of Article 6 §   1, the Court made no award in relation to them.   The Court noted, however, that a proportion of the proceedings in the High Court, and all the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, were devoted to the question of whether the Panel of the Gaming Board was biased and whether, given the doctrine of necessity, it was possible to rectify this defect. The Court awarded GBP 50,000 for domestic legal costs and expenses in relation to these proceedings.   Costs before the Court and Commission As neither the applicant nor the Government had called into question the award of 13,500 for costs and expenses before the Court and Commission, the Grand Chamber considered that the sum awarded was reasonable and should stand. The Court also noted that the issues before the Grand Chamber were not extensive or complex and that the applicant succeeded only as regards his claim for domestic costs.     In the circumstances, and having regard to the Government’s view as to the reasonable figure for costs before the Grand Chamber, the Court awarded a total of GBP 25,000 for all the costs before the Court and Commission.     Judge Rozakis expressed a partly dissenting opinion as did Judge Ress joined by Judges Tsatsa-Nikolovska and Levits and Judge Casadevall joined by Judge Kovler. All three partly dissenting opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   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 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. [1] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.