CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32AFAD20 { width:26.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; 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     123   5.3.2003     Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASE OF EZEH AND CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Wednesday 5 March 2003 at 9.00 a.m.     The applicants   The applications (nos.   39665/98 and 40086/98) were brought by two United Kingdom nationals, Okechukwiw   Ezeh, born in 1967, and Lawrence Connors, born in 1954. Both are currently in prison in the United Kingdom.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the applicability of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights to proceedings determining charges against prisoners concerning prison disciplinary offences. Mr Ezeh was charged with using threatening language to a parole officer and Mr Connors, with assault of a prison officer. It is argued that each charge had an equivalent in domestic criminal law. Both applicants were found guilty after a hearing before the prison governor, in which neither was legally represented. The maximum potential sentence was 42 additional days’ detention: Mr Ezeh was sentenced to 40 days detention and Mr Connors to seven days detention.   In its Chamber judgment of 15 July 2002, the Court found that the nature of the charges against the applicants, together with the nature and severity of the potential and actual penalties, were such as to lead to the conclusion that both applicants were subject to criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that, accordingly, Article 6 applied to their proceedings before the governor.   The Court recalled that the Convention required that a person charged with a criminal offence who did not wish to defend himself in person had to be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing. It was not disputed that both the applicants requested legal representation for the hearing before the governor, which he refused, considering it unnecessary. The single judge of the High Court had also confirmed that there was no right to legal representation and that the Governor’s refusal of legal representation was not irrational or perverse.     Accordingly, the question whether the applicants could have secured representation (either through personal funding or free of charge) was not a relevant consideration for the governor: he excluded the applicants’ legal representation, as he was entitled to under domestic law, irrespective of whether they could have obtained the services of a lawyer free of charge.   In such circumstances, the Court considered that the applicants were denied the right to be legally represented in the proceedings before the prison governor and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance). The Court did not consider it necessary to consider the applicants’ alternative argument that the interests of justice required that they be granted free legal assistance for the adjudication proceedings.   The Court further held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It awarded them 17,124 pounds sterling (GBP) for costs and expenses, less 2,387.50 euros paid in legal aid by the Council of Europe.   Complaints   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention, in that they were not allowed to have a lawyer present at the hearing before the governor and that they could not obtain free legal aid for legal representation prior to and during the hearing.   Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4   February 1998 and 3 March 1998 respectively and were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. They were both declared admissible on 30 January 2001.   In its Chamber judgment of 15 July 2002 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c). The Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [1] (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) on 8 October 2002. The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 6 November 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), John Hedigan (Irish), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Christopher Whomersley , Agent , Philip Sales , Counsel , Steven Bramley, Geoff Underwood , Gail Bradley , Advisers;   Applicants:   Tim Owen , Peter Weatherby , Counsel, John Dickinson , Adviser, A. McDonald , Observer .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.