Information Note on the Court’s case-law 42

May 2002

Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 35605/97

Judgment 28.5.2002 [GC]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Impartial tribunal

Impartiality of Gaming Board and scope of judicial review: violation

Facts : The applicant was managing director of a company which owned several licensed casinos. Following raids by the police and the seizure of a large quantity of d ocuments, the Gaming Board, a statutory body which monitors the gaming industry, lodged objections to the annual renewal of the company’s licences and applied for the cancellation of its existing licences. The applicant and other executive directors of the company subsequently resigned. New licenses were granted by the Licensing Magistrates after a hearing at which the Gaming Board expressed its support for the application, referring to the fact that the executive directors primarily responsible for the mat ters about which the Board had been concerned had left the company. The applicant was later informed by the Gaming Board that it was minded to revoke his certificate of approval as a fit and proper person to hold a management position in the gaming industr y. After a hearing before a panel of three members of the Gaming Board, the applicant was informed that he was not considered to be a fit and proper person and that his certificate of approval was to be revoked. The effect of this was that the applicant wa s unable to obtain employment in any sector of the gaming industry. He sought leave to apply for judicial review, on the ground that the panel had been biased, since the Gaming Board had already expressed the view that he was not a fit and proper person at the hearing before the Licensing Magistrates. Moreover, an internal decision of the Gaming Board disclosed in the course of the proceedings recorded that, prior to the examination of his case, the Board, including the members of the panel, had concluded t hat the applicant was not a fit and proper person. The High Court accepted that there was an appearance of bias but found that there was no real danger of injustice. It added that, in accordance with the “doctrine of necessity”, the decision of the panel h ad to stand: since the matter could not be delegated to an independent tribunal, the decision would have to be taken by the Gaming Board itself. The Court of Appeal, agreeing with this analysis, refused leave to appeal.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – In its judgment of 7 November 2000, the Chamber had found that the proceedings had determined the applicant’s civil rights and obligations, so that Article 6 § 1 was applicable. It had considered that the panel had not presented the necessary appearance of impartiality a nd had had concluded that, since the domestic courts were unable to remit the case for a first decision by the Gaming Board or by another independent tribunal, they did not, in the particular circumstances of the case, have “full jurisdiction” when they re viewed the panel’s decision. It had therefore found a breach of Article 6 § 1. The applicant, in his request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber, had referred only to issues under Article 41 and had not raised any question relating to the Chambe r’s findings on the merits of the case under Article 6 § 1. Moreover, the Government had confirmed that they accepted the Chamber’s ruling in that respect. While cases referred to the Grand Chamber embrace all aspects of the application examined by the Cha mber in its judgment, and not just the issues disputed by the parties, there was no reason to depart from the Chamber’s findings in connection with Article 6 § 1. There had therefore been a violation of that provision.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court concluded, by ten votes to seven, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It made awards in respect of costs and expenses.

© 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