Search
document

Document text Analytics

DARNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOMCONCURRING OPINION

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 13, 1992

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

DARNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOMCONCURRING OPINION

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: May 13, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

CONCURRING OPINION

of Sir Basil HALL

I agree that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 in

this case. In determining the length of proceedings which are relevant

to this conclusion I do not however agree that the Paragraph 190

procedure should be taken into account. The appeal to the Secretary of

State was of an administrative character, and the Secretary of State

is not a tribunal established by law. The proceedings which must be

considered for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 are in my view the

proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal claiming that the applicant

had been unfairly dismissed and the proceedings on appeal to the

Employment Appeal Tribunal.

These proceedings were instituted on 10 August 1984 before the

Nottingham Industrial Tribunal but were stayed from time to time at the

applicant's request until, on 9 November 1988, the respondents in the

proceedings, the Trent Regional Health Authority, sought an order that

the proceedings be dismissed or withdrawn by the applicant. For the

delays up till then the applicant must bear responsibility - it was his

choice that the proceedings were delayed while he sought a non-judicial

remedy, the Paragraph 190 procedure.

The proceedings were then re-activated.

Before the Industrial Tribunal they then took just over a year.

The Tribunal found on 23 February 1990 that the applicant had not been

unfairly dismissed. On 6 April 1990 the applicant appealed to the

Employment Appeal Tribunal. This appeal has not yet been heard.

In cases before Industrial Tribunals and the Employment Appeal

Tribunal concerning relations between employers and employees -

particularly where reinstatement is on issue - there is particular need

that a final determination should be made expeditiously. The

proceedings before the Employment Appeal Tribunal have taken two years

so far. That is too long.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

Date

2 December 1988 Introduction of the application

29 May 1989 Registration of the application

Examination of admissibility

11 October 1989 Commission's decision to give notice of

the application to the respondent

Government and to invite them to submit

written observations on the complaint

concerning the length of the proceedings

24 May 1990 Observations of the respondent Government

20 July 1990 Applicant's observations in reply

7 September 1990 Commission's decision to grant applicant

legal aid

7 December 1990 Commission's decision to hold an oral

hearing and to refer the case to the First

Chamber

10 April 1991 Hearing before the First Chamber and

decision on the admissibility of the

application

Examination of the merits

13 May 1992 Deliberations on the merits, vote and

adoption of the Report provided for in

Article 31 of the Convention

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant