CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;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 } .sB860720F { width:28.8pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s6495A1EA { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; letter-spacing:-0.1pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     92   18.2.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HOOD V. THE UNITED KINGDOM       In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 18 February 1999 in the case of Hood v. the United Kingdom (application no.   27267/95), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 (right to liberty) and 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 applicant GBP 10,500 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts     The applicant, Mr David Hood, a British national, was born in 1970 and lives in the United Kingdom.     In 1995 the applicant was tried and convicted under the Army Act 1955 by court-martial on a number of charges of a criminal nature. He had been detained prior to his court-martial following a decision by his Commanding Officer and the applicant unsuccessfully pursued domestic habeas corpus proceedings in that respect.   Central to the court-martial system under the 1955 Act 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. Under the 1955 Act (and the rules and regulations made thereunder), an accused’s Commanding Officer initially decided on the necessity for the pre-trial detention of an accused.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The application to the Commission, which was lodged on 18 April 1995, was declared partly admissible on 1 December 1997.     Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on 28 May 1998 in which it established the facts and expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Government of the United Kingdom brought the case before the Court.       Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was 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 , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges , Sir John Freeland (British), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Mr Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar.     3.   Summary of the judgment [1]     Complaints     The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 about his detention prior to his court-martial by a decision of his Commanding Officer and under Article 6 § 1 that the court-martial was not an independent or impartial tribunal.     Decision of the Court     With regard to the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the Court recalled, inter alia , its previous judgment in the Huber case (Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990) where it found that, if the officer authorised by law to decide on the pre-trial detention of an accused is liable to intervene later in the proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority, then that officer could not be regarded as being independent of the parties at the time the decision on the accused’s pre-trial detention was taken. Having found that the Commanding Officer was liable to play a central role in the later prosecution of the case against the applicant, the Court concluded that the applicant’s misgivings about his Commanding Officer’s impartiality were objectively justified. It also considered that that officer’s responsibility for discipline and order in his command provided an additional reason to doubt his impartiality. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 and, given the absence of a domestic enforceable right to compensation, it also concluded as to a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.   As to the applicant’s court-martial, 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 and 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 present case from this earlier judgment, and therefore found a violation of Article   6 §   1.     The Court awarded the applicant’s reasonable costs and expenses, Judge Zupančič dissenting on the question of an award of non-pecuniary damages to the applicant. His partly dissenting opinion is annexed to the judgment.     Judgments are available on the day of delivery on the Court’s Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr)     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: 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.