Resolution ResDH(2001)120
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 8 February 2000
in the case of McGonnell against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 October 2001
at the 764th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the McGonnell case delivered on 8 February 2000 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 28488/95) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 June 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Richard James Joseph McGonnell, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint in particular of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Royal Court of Guernsey on account of the presence of the Bailiff as a judge of the Royal Court, the latter being in addition vested with legislative and executive functions in Guernsey;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 9 December 1998;
Whereas in its judgment of 8 February 2000 the Court, in particular:
- held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 20 913,90 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses, together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7.5% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 8 February 2000, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the Appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 22 March 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 8 February 2000,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2001)120
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the McGonnell case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Royal Court in Guernsey adopted a Practice Direction No. 1 of 2001 formalising and extending the recent informal practice as regards administrative proceedings after the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this case with effect from 31 May 2000, the Bailiff is no longer either the President or a member of three committees, namely the Appointments Board, the Legislation Committee and the Rules of Procedure Committee.
At the same time, at the commencement of the hearing of any administrative proceedings, Counsel for all parties will be required to state whether their respective clients have any objection to the presiding judge sitting in that particular case, and if so, the grounds for such objection. It is, therefore, incumbent upon Counsel prior to the hearing to have obtained full instructions in this regard.
To enable Counsel to obtain satisfactory instructions, the presiding judge will inform them in writing, prior to the hearing, of the judge's recollection of this previous involvement, in any way, in the issues to be considered or determined by the Court.
The Government of the United Kingdom also informed the Committee of Ministers' that the judgement of the European Court had been transmitted to all authorities directly concerned, apart from a large diffusion notably in the local press (the Guernsey Globe and Guernsey Press) as well as in widely distributed series of law reports.
The government considers, in view of these measures, that it has met its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy