CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 février 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9EE41C78 { width:396.9pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS         97                       8.2.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF McGONNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   In a judgment notified in writing in the case of McGonnell v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also made an award of costs under Article 41.   1.   Facts   In May 1986 Richard McGonnell, a British national born in 1955, moved into a flower-packing shed on his land as a temporary measure because he was in financial difficulties. His problems were compounded in 1987-9 by frost and hurricanes which destroyed his crops and part of his glasshouses. Mr McGonnell made various requests for permission for change of use of the shed, which were refused, and on 6 June 1995 an appeal to the Royal Court was dismissed by reference to the Development Plan. The case was presided over by the Bailiff who also has functions in connection with the executive and the legislature in Guernsey. In this particular case the Bailiff had presided, when he was Deputy Bailiff, in 1990 when the States of Deliberation, the Island’s legislature, adopted the Development Plan.     2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 November 1995. On 1 November 1998, in accordance with Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Court.   A hearing was held on 28 September 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa   (French), President, Pranas Kūris   (Lithuanian), Francoise Tulkens (Belgian) Willi Fuhrmann   (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech) Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian),   judges Sir John Laws (British), ad hoc judge ,   and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.   3.   Summary of the judgment   Complaints   The applicant complained that there were such close connections between the Bailiff’s judicial functions and his legislative and executive roles that he no longer had the independence and impartiality required by Article 6.     Decision of the Court   The Court rejected arguments by the Government that, in not challenging the Bailiff in the domestic courts, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies or, alternatively, had waived his right to complain about the role of the Bailiff in Strasbourg.   It then noted that there was no question in the case of actual bias on the part of the Bailiff: the case turned on whether the Bailiff had the required “appearance” of independence, or the required “objective” impartiality.   In applying this test to the case, the Court noted that the Bailiff had had initial personal, direct involvement in the case in that he presided over the States of Deliberation when the relevant Development Plan was adopted in 1990. He was then the President of the Royal Court which decided the applicant’s planning appeal in June 1995.   The Court found that this accumulation of functions gave rise to doubts as to the impartiality of the Bailiff when sitting in the Royal Court, which gave rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 41   The Court awarded the applicant £20,913.90 in respect of costs.     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int) 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 Court.