CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 février 1999

.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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s5752D6FA { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2A13E303 { color:#2e97d3 } .s8FB79571 { width:14.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     91   18.2.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CABLE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 18 February 1999 in the case of Cable and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no.   24436/94), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants a total of GBP 40,000 for legal costs and expenses, less FRF 19,200 received in legal aid.   1.   Principal facts   The case originated in thirty-five separate applications, brought by British citizens. Twenty-four of the applicants had served in the air force, and the other eleven applicants had served in the army. Each applicant was charged with one or more civilian criminal or armed forces disciplinary offences and was tried, convicted and sentenced by a court-martial under either the Air Force Act 1955 or the Army Act 1955.   Central to the system under the 1955 Acts was the role of the “convening officer” who, inter alia, was responsible for convening the court-martial and appointing its members and the prosecuting officer. The convening officer had the final decision on the nature and detail of the charges to be brought, and a plea to a lesser charge could not be accepted from the accused without his or her consent. In certain circumstances the convening officer could dissolve the court-martial either before or during the trial, and, since he or she usually also acted as confirming officer, the court-martial’s findings were not effective until confirmed by him or her.   2.   Procedure, and composition of the Court     The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on various dates between June 1994 and September 1996. Having declared the applications admissible, the Commission adopted thirty-five reports on 4 March 1998 in which it expressed the unanimous opinions that in each case there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the applicant had not received a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The British Government referred the cases to the Court on 14 August 1998.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the cases were transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the new European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol on 1 November 1998.     Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss) , President , Elizabeth Palm (Swedish), Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Boštjan Z upančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (TFYROMacedonia”), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges , Sir John Freeland (British), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]     Complaint     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the courts-martial which tried them were not independent o o r impartial tribunals.     Decision of the Court     The Court recalled that in a previous judgment (Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25   February 1997) it had found that a court-martial convened pursuant to the Army Act 1955 did not meet the requirements of independence or impartiality set by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in view in particular of the central part played in the prosecution by the convening officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities, was superior in rank to the members of the court-martial and had the power, albeit it in prescribed circumstances, to dissolve the court-martial and to refuse to confirm its decision. The Court could see no reason for distinguishing the cases of the present thirty-five applicants from this earlier judgment, and therefore found a violation of Article   6 §   1.     The Court awarded the applicants’ reasonable legal costs and expenses, Judge Zupančič dissenting on the question of an award of non-pecuniary damages to the applicants. His partly dissenting opinion is annexed to the judgment.     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr) on the day of their delivery.     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Mr Roderick LIDDELL Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 [1] .     This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.