CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7E99EE1A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   485   9.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF EZEH AND CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered, at a public hearing in Strasbourg, a judgment in the case of Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom (application nos.   39665/98 and 40086/98).   The Court held, by 11 votes to six, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to defend self in person or through legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. By 16 votes to one, the Court held that the applicants were to be paid 44,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses, less EUR 4,294.79 paid in legal aid by the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, both United Kingdom nationals, are Okechukwiw   Ezeh, born in 1967, and Lawrence Connors, born in 1954. Both are currently in prison in the United Kingdom.   While serving lengthy prison sentences the applicants were charged with prison disciplinary offences under the prison rules. Mr Ezeh was charged with using threatening language and Mr Connors, with assault of a prison officer. It is argued that each charge had an equivalent in domestic criminal law. The applicants’ requests to be allowed legal representation for their respective adjudication hearings were refused by the prison governor.   Both 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.   They were subsequently refused leave to apply for judicial review.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application s [Note1] were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23   and 29 January 1998 and were transmitted to the Court on [Note2] 1 November 1998.   In its Chamber judgment in the case, delivered on 15 July 2002, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in respect of both applicants. 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.   The Court found that, given the nature of the charges against the applicants and the nature and severity of the potential and actual penalties, both were subject to criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Article 6 therefore 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. 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 that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c). The Court did not consider it necessary to consider the applicants’ alternative complaint that they were denied free legal assistance for the adjudication proceedings.   On 8 October 2002 the United Kingdom Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article   43 (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 6 November 2002 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. A hearing was held on 5 March 2003.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: [Note3]   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger) , Josep Casadevall (Andorran) , Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian) , John Hedigan (Irish) , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish) , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian) , András Baka (Hungarian) , Rait Maruste (Estonian) , Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they had been denied legal representation and, alternatively, legal aid for their adjudication hearings before the prison governor.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 3 (c) In considering whether the case concerned criminal offences within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court reiterated that whether an offence was classified as criminal or disciplinary under domestic law was only a starting point; the nature of the offence was of greater importance and the degree of severity of the penalty that could be incurred also had to be taken into consideration. In addition, the case had to viewed in the light of a prison context and the practical reasons behind creating a special prison disciplinary regime. Considering the prison context, the Court did not accept the United Kingdom Government’s argument that removing the power of prison governors to award additional days would undermine prison discipline. It had not been explained why the range of other available sanctions – which had since been extended – would not have had a comparable impact in maintaining the efficiency of the prison disciplinary system. And, it had not been convincingly shown that the disciplinary needs in Scotland, where awards of additional days had been suspended, were significantly different from those in England and Wales.   Considering the nature of the offences, the Court noted that they concerned prisoners and not all citizens. However, the disciplinary charges also corresponded to offences under criminal law. The theoretical possibility of concurrent criminal and disciplinary liability was at the very least a relevant point which tended to the classification of the nature of both offences as “mixed” offences. Furthermore, the awards of additional days were imposed after a finding of culpability, to punish the applicants for offences and to prevent further offending by them and others. These factors gave the offences a certain colouring which did not entirely coincide with that of a purely disciplinary matter.   The Court accepted that the penalties imposed had a legal basis. Delaying the applicants’ release dates until the expiry of the additional days did not take the period of their imprisonment beyond the length of their original sentences. As the basis for their detention remained their original convictions and sentences, their custody during the additional days awarded was therefore lawful under domestic law.   Nevertheless, the reality of awards of additional days was that prisoners were detained in prison beyond the date on which they would otherwise have been released, as a consequence of separate disciplinary proceedings which were legally unconnected to the original conviction and sentence.     Accordingly, the Court found that awards of additional days by the prison governor constituted fresh deprivations of liberty imposed for punitive reasons after a finding of culpability. In view of the deprivations of liberty which were liable to be and actually were imposed in the case, there was a presumption that the charges were criminal. The maximum possible was 42 days’ additional detention. The awards of 40 and seven days respectively could not be regarded as sufficiently unimportant or inconsequential to displace the presumed criminal nature of the charges. The charges were therefore “criminal” and Article 6 applied.   The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber’s reasoning that the refusal of the governor to allow the applicants to be legally represented constituted a violation of Article 6 § 3(c). It was unnecessary to consider the alternative complaint that the interests of justice required the granting of free legal aid for the proceedings.   Judges Pellonpää, Wildhaber, Palm, Caflisch, Zupančič, and Maruste expressed dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [1] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [Note1]   For transitional-period cases before the former Court on 1 November 1998. [Note2]   If the Commission referred the case to the Court, followed possibly by the Government and/or the applicant(s). [Note3]   For Mr Caflisch, add the following footnote: “Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein.”