CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 juillet 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. July 1998 Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom - 20390/92 and 21322/92 Judgment 10.7.1998 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Restrictions based on national security grounds on applicants’ rights to have a determination by a court or tribunal of their claims that they were victims of unlawful discrimination: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Right not to be discriminated against on grounds of religious belief or political opinion guaranteed under 1976 Act – had applicants successfully asserted that right before competent domestic court or tribunal an award of compensation would have been made in their favour – the pecuniary nature of right in issue serves to qualify it as a “civil right” – this conclusion not affected by fact applicants were bidding for public works contracts or that offers never accepted. Moreover, contrary to Government’s submission, section 42(1) of 1976 Act does not define in limine scope of substantive right – the issue as to whether act was done for purposes of national security or an act of unlawful discrimination can be submitted to domestic court or tribunal for determination. B.   Compliance Reiteration of Court’s case-law on scope of “right to a court”. In instant case, no full scrutiny ever carried out of facts which led Secretary of State to issue conclusive certificates under section 42 of 1976 Act – domestic court in Tinnelly case unable to go behind terms of certificate to examine for itself merits of underlying factual basis for refusing contract on national security grounds – nor did court have sight of all relevant documents. Court mindful of security considerations at stake – however, no reasonable relationship of proportionality between protection of national security concerns relied on and impact which conclusive certificates had on applicants’ right of access to a court – in this regard, Court notes that in other contexts arrangements have been found to safeguard national security concerns and afford at same time substantial degree of procedural justice to individual – nothing to suggest that recourse to similar arrangements in instant context would impair public confidence in administration of justice in Northern Ireland – on the contrary, it would be enhanced. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 8 TAKEN ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 13 Not necessary to examine applicants’ complaints under these Articles in view of finding of violation of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaints (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: Specified sums awarded only in respect of applicants’ loss of opportunity to obtain ruling from domestic courts on merits of their claims – Court unwilling to speculate on outcome of domestic proceedings – claim for pecuniary damage therefore dismissed. B.   Costs and expenses: No claim submitted in respect of legal costs – expenses incurred by second and third applicants awarded in full. Conclusion : specified sums for loss of opportunity to obtain a ruling awarded to all applicants; expenses awarded to second and third applicants (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes