Information Note on the Court’s case-law
September 1994
Fayed v. United Kingdom - 17101/90
Judgment 21.9.1994
Article 6
Article 6-1
Access to court
Investigation into the affairs of a public company by independent inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and publication by the Secretary of State of the Inspectors' report: no 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.GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (NON-EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES)
Neither judicial review of the Inspectors' and the Secretary of State's actions nor libel actions against a third party would have provided a remedy against the responsible authorities for determination of the truth of damaging statements about the applicants in the Inspectors' report.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).
II.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Investigation by the Inspectors
Applicability: Inspectors did not adjudicate, either in form or in substance — their functions were essentially investigative — their inquiry did not "determine" the applicants' civil right to a good reputation, nor was its result directly decisive for that right — Article 6 § 1 (under its "civil" head) not applicable.
B.Proceedings to contest Inspectors' findings
1.Applicability
Not necessary to settle the issue in the circumstances.
2.Compliance
Article 6 § 1 secures "right to a court", of which right of access is an aspect — right of access is not absolute but may be subject to implied limitations — whilst national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, limitations applied must not impair the very essence of the right, must pursue a legitimate aim and must respect the principle of proportionality.
Limitation on applicants' ability to take legal proceedings, whether by way of a defamation action or by way of judicial review, to challenge findings and conclusions in the Inspectors' report which were damaging to their reputations — Court had regard in particular to national authorities' responsibility to regulate conduct of the affairs of public companies and to the safeguards that existed in relation to the impugned investigation — limitation not found to involve an unjustified denial of applicants' "right to a court".
C.Libel proceedings against others
Complaint not pursued.
D.Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
Applicants' effective withdrawal of this complaint.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine (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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy