The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of
Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to
as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of
Human Rights in the Hauschildt case delivered on 24 May l989 and
transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application
against Denmark lodged with the European Commission of Human
Rights on 27 October l982 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the
Convention by Mr Mogens Hauschildt, a Danish national, who
complained that the courts that had considered criminal charges
brought against him were not impartial;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by
the Commission on l6 October l987;
Whereas in its judgment of 24 May l989 the Court:
- rejected by fourteen votes to three, as unfounded, the
Government's preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies;
- held by twelve votes to five that there had been a breach
of Article 6, paragraph l (art. 6-1), of the Convention;
- held unanimously that Denmark was to pay to the
applicant, for costs and expenses, £20 000;
- rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Goverment of Denmark to inform it of
the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment
of 24 May l989, having regard to its obligation under Article 53
(art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the
Committee of Ministers, the Government of Denmark gave the
Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of
the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution,
Declares, after having taken note of the information
supplied by the Government of Denmark, that it has exercised its
functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this
case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (91)9
Information provided by the Government of Denmark
during the examination of the Hauschildt case
by the Committee of Ministers
Sections 60 to 62 of the Administration of Justice Act
were amended by an Act of l3 June l990 which came into force on
l July l990.
According to section 60, paragraph 2, as amended, no
judge who has taken pre-trial decisions concerning remand in
custody in pursuance of Section 762, paragraph 2, of the
Administration of Justice Act (particularly confirmed suspicion
of the prisoner's guilt) or concerning certain other
investigative steps according to this act may act as trial or
appeal judge in the same case.
An exception is made for trials under the special simplified
procedure provided for in Sections 925 and 925.a where the
accused has confessed the crime and for cases which involve no
decision on the evidence of the prisoner's guilt.
Furthermore, a general clause concerning the impartiality
of judges was introduced as Section 6l of the Administration of
Justice Act. According to this provision, no person shall act
as judge in a case when there are other circumstances apart from
those listed in Section 60, paragraph 2, that are liable to call
the complete impartiality of the said judge into question.
Concerning the payment of the sum of £20 000 awarded by
the Court to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses, it
is recalled that the applicant was found guilty of fraud and
embezzlement on six counts involving approximately 45 million
Danish crowns and that according to Danish law a person convicted
in a criminal case has to reimburse the state the trial costs as
well as the costs incurred by the detention on remand if he has
the financial means, or whenever he gets such means.
In its judgment of l November l982, the Copenhagen City
Court ordered the applicant to pay all the costs relating to his
trial. These costs amount to a total of over 3 million Danish
crowns which the applicant has not reimbursed to this day.
In the specific circumstances of the present case and in
view of the fact that the sum awarded by the Court relates to
costs and expenses and not to any pecuniary or non-pecuniary
damage suffered by the applicant, it is the Government's view
that the sum of £20 000 awarded by the Court should be set up
against the sum still owed by the applicant to the authorities
of Denmark.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy