Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel
AFFAIRE BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION c. FINLANDE
CASE OF BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION v. FINLAND
(49/1998/952/1167)
DÉCISION/DECISION
STRASBOURG
7 août/August 1998
In the case of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Finland[1],
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B[2],
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 June 1998, and composed of the following judges:
Mr A.N. Loizou, Chairman,
Mr R. Pekkanen,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against Finland lodged with the Court on 21 April 1998 by a limited liability company incorporated in Louisville, Kentucky, the United States of America, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention;
Whereas Finland has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention;
Having regard to the Commission’s report of 2 December 1997 on the application (no. 23749/94) lodged with the Commission by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation on 8 March 1994;
Whereas the applicant company alleged breaches of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal), on the grounds that it had been denied an oral hearing in civil proceedings to which it was a party, in particular before the Appeals Division of the Board of Patents and Registers and the Supreme Administrative Court; that the Appeals Division had lacked the requisite independence and impartiality and had failed to communicate to the applicant company a document filed by an interested third party; and that the reasoning of the Supreme Administrative Court had been brief;
Whereas the applicant company, in specifying the object of its application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that it sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1.Finds that
(a)the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court has already established case-law on the relevant requirements of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair and oral hearing before and independent and impartial tribunal) of the Convention; and
(b)the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;
2.Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 7 August 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Andreas Nicolas Loizou
Chairman
Signed: Herbert Petzold
Registrar
[1]Notes by the Registrar
. The case is numbered 49/1998/952/1167. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
[2]. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy