CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 juillet 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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     559   31.07.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF A. D. T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the case of A. D. T. v. the United Kingdom [1] . The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 20,929.05 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of damages, and GBP 12,391.83 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant, a British national born in 1948, is homosexual. Following a police search of his home, he was arrested and taken to the local station where he admitted that certain videos seized during the search contained footage of himself and up to four adult men engaging in sexual acts in his home. He was convicted of gross indecency between men contrary to Section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and on 20 November 1996 was conditionally discharged for two years.   The applicant submits that being charged and convicted for his participation in sexual acts with more than one other consenting adult male in the privacy of his own home constituted an interference with his private life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. He further complains of discrimination, under Article 14 of the Convention, as a group of heterosexual individuals or homosexual females involved in similar sexual activities would not have been prosecuted, there being no legislation prohibiting such acts.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 March 1997.   On 16 March 1999 the Court (Third Section) declared the application admissible. A hearing was held on 30 November 1999. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa, (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Sir Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that his rights guaranteed under Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court found an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life both as regards the existence of the law prohibiting consensual sexual acts between more than two men in private, and as regards the conviction itself.   The Court noted that the conviction was based not on the fact that the recordings had been made, but on the activities themselves. Further, the activities in the case were purely and genuinely private in the sense that there was no real likelihood of the video recordings entering the public domain. In such circumstances, the margin of appreciation allowed to the respondent State was narrow.   The Court found no “pressing social need” which could justify either the legislation at issue in the case or its application in the proceedings against the applicant, and therefore found a violation of Article 8.   Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8   Having found a violation of Article 8, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well.   Article 41   The Court awarded the applicant the sum of GBP 20,929.05 for damages and GBP 12,391.83 for costs and expenses.   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] 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.   [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.