CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 mai 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s78179214 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:95% } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2B794F18 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:95% } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC0F6D4 { width:22.13pt; display:inline-block } .s72BA45F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB2A34B00 { width:14.66pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8613AAEC { width:11.55pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s92FB4F65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .sE97D0CD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .s6BFAA052 { width:21.28pt; display:inline-block } .s97038F6C { width:19.5pt; display:inline-block } .sDE095A02 { width:32.94pt; display:inline-block } .s1C79B3AB { width:10.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7579BBA9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:95%; font-size:11pt } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   323   9.5.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE SANDER v. UNITED KINGDOM     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment in the following case:   Section 3   Sander v. United Kingdom   [1] (Application number 34129/96)                           Violation Article 6 § 1   Kudlip Sander, a British national of Asian origin born in 1960 and living in Birmingham, who was convicted of fraud on 8 March 1995, complained that he was tried by a racist jury, in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal).   During the trial a juror sent a note to the trial judge expressing fears that other members of the jury, who had made openly racist remarks and jokes, were not impartial. The juror was separated from the others and the contents of the note read out in open Court to the jury by the trial judge who also reminded jury members of their duty to be impartial.   The next day the trial judge received a collective letter signed by the entire jury, including the member who had written the first letter, refuting the allegations and denying any racial bias. The applicant appealed against his conviction, complaining that, among other things, the trial judge was wrong not to have dismissed the jury. His appeal was unsuccessful.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the allegations contained in the first note were capable of causing the applicant and any objective observer legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the court, which neither the collective letter nor the redirection of the jury by the judge could have dispelled.   It held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and dismissed unanimously the applicant’ claim for just satisfaction. No claim was made for costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in English.)   ***   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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Or:     Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax:     (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg 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.