CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     179   14.3.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF STEPHEN JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 14 March 2000 in the case of Stephen Jordan v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5   (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant GBP 3,500 in respect of his legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicant Stephen Jordan, a British national, was born in 1971 and lives in the United Kingdom.   On 27 May 1995 the applicant, at the time a soldier of the regular forces in the British Army, had completed a sentence of imprisonment but he continued to be detained, under close arrest, on the basis of suspected offences which were under investigation by the military police. He was brought before his commanding officer on 16 June 1995 and a charge sheet recording one charge under the Theft Act 1968 was read to him. Additional and similar charges were added in August 1995 and in March 1997.   His detention under close arrest continued until 11 December 1995, when he was released on open arrest following the settlement of habeas corpus proceedings he had instituted in the High Court. In mid-1996 he was released from open arrest and sent on leave. Further proceedings for unlawful detention were instituted by him against the Ministry of Defence and those proceedings were settled in October 1996, the applicant being paid a sum of money and his costs. His court-martial took place in November 1999 and he pleaded guilty to offences of obtaining property by deception to the value of £15,000. He was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, which period was subsequently reduced to 3 months by the Reviewing Authority. His appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court is pending.     2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 February 1996. On 14 January 1998 the Commission declared the application partly inadmissible. The case was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. On 27 April 1999 the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 were declared admissible and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.         Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President, Nicolas Bratza (British), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicant complained that, during the period of detention which began in May 1995, he did not have a hearing which complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. He mainly alleged that, if his hearing before his commanding officer on 16 June 1995 was meant to constitute such a hearing, his commanding officer could not be considered to be independent or impartial and could not therefore constitute a “judge or other officer” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3. In such circumstances, that hearing in June 1995 was, according to the applicant, insufficient to comply with Article 5 § 3. He also complained that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation in that respect in violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 3 of the Convention   The Court referred to its judgment in a similar case (Hood v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 February 1999) where it had been argued by the Government that the hearing of an accused by his commanding officer pursuant to Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules fulfilled the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. However, the Court considered in that case that the commanding officer was liable to play a central role in the subsequent prosecution of a case against an accused, and considered that Mr Hood’s misgivings about his commanding officer’s impartiality were therefore objectively justified. It was also of the view in Mr Hood’s case that the commanding officer’s responsibility for discipline and order provided an additional reason for an accused reasonably to doubt that officer’s impartiality when deciding on the necessity of the pre-trial detention of an accused in his command. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention since Mr Hood’s commanding officer could not be regarded as independent of the parties at the relevant time.   Turning to the facts of Mr Jordan’s case, the Court did not find   any ground upon which it could distinguish his case from the Hood application. Accordingly, and even assuming that Mr Jordan’s interview with his commanding officer on 16 June 1995 was conducted pursuant to Rule 4 of the 1972 Rules, the Court considered that that the powers and position of Mr Jordan’s commanding officer were such that his commanding officer could not be regarded as independent of the parties at the relevant time. The Court therefore concluded as to a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on that basis.   Article 5 § 5 of the Convention   In this context, the Court again noted that, in Mr Hood’s case, the Government had acknowledged that Mr Hood did not have an enforceable right to compensation in relation to the same contravention of Article 5 § 3 on which it had just concluded in Mr Jordan’s case. The Court, accordingly, concluded that there has also been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in Mr Jordan’s case.   Article 41 of the Convention   Mr Jordan did not claim any pecuniary loss but claimed that he had suffered non-pecuniary loss as a result of the violations of Article 5 in his case. The Court found, as it did in the Hood judgment, that the evidence did not support the view that Mr Jordan would not have been detained prior to his court-martial, or that he would have been released earlier, had there been no breach of Article 5 § 3. The Court therefore found that the judgment itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant as regards any non-pecuniary loss suffered by him. Having considered the costs and expenses claimed by the applicant, he was awarded £3,500 in this respect.   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.