CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 février 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. February 1997 Findlay v. the United Kingdom - 22107/93 Judgment 25.2.1997 Article 6 Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Independence and impartiality of court martial: 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.   SCOPE OF THE CASE A.   Complaints concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention Court cannot entertain new complaints – however, all matters complained of were raised in substance before Commission. B.   The complaint concerning Article 25 of the Convention and Article 2 of the European Agreement relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights Issue concerning complaint by Judge Advocate General to Solicitors' Complaints Bureau was not pursued. C.   The new legislation Court cannot rule on legislation in abstracto – notes with satisfaction changes made to court-martial system by Armed Forces Act 1996. II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Article 6 § 1 clearly applicable since proceedings involved determination of sentence following guilty plea. B.   Compliance Convening officer central to prosecution and closely linked to prosecuting authorities – inter alia he decided which charges should be brought, convened court martial, appointed members and prosecuting and defending officers. Members of court martial were all military personnel subordinate in rank to convening officer who, as confirming officer, could vary sentence imposed. Defects could not be corrected by subsequent review proceedings since applicant entitled to first-instance tribunal meeting requirements of Article 6 §   1. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage: Court cannot speculate as to outcome of court martial had there been no violation – no compensation awarded. B.   Costs and expenses: awarded in full. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant (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