CASE OF THE SUNDAY TIMES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1) (ARTICLE 50)DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: November 6, 1980
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR GERALD FITZMAURICE
Article 50 (art. 50) of the European Convention on Human Rights allows the Court complete discretion as to what "just satisfaction " is to be afforded to the injured party in the event of a breach of the Convention in cases where the internal law of the State concerned does not afford adequate reparation. The Court is free to depart from the normal English practice of costs following the event.
Having regard to the character of the present case, and to the difficult and highly complex nature of the issues involved, and also to the narrow majority by which the applicants (Times Newspapers Ltd.) were found to have suffered from a breach of the Convention, I consider that this finding constituted in itself an amply sufficient satisfaction in the circumstances, and that there is no occasion to award the applicants any sums by way of costs, whether English or Strasbourg costs. It is on this ground that I have voted in favour of the Court ’ s rejection (on other grounds) of the claim for the English costs, and have voted against its award (under various heads) of Strasbourg costs.
I should in any case have voted against the award of £7,500 in respect of the work done by Mr. Whitaker. The Court is not bound by the English practice in this respect, and in my opinion if the salary paid to a full-time salaried solicitor covers a particular piece of work which it is part of his normal duties to perform, his employers should not be regarded by this Court as being entitled to recover the amount which they would have had to pay if they had employed an outside expert adviser to do the work concerned. In the circumstances, therefore, I consider this amount of £7,500 as being a cost that was not incurred by the applicants (since they would have paid Mr. Whitaker the same salary in any event), and in my view the award of it is quite gratuitous and uncalled for.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LIESCH
(Translation)
I agree with the separate opinion of Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA
(Translation)
I am unable to accept the opinion expressed by the majority in para graph 25 of the judgment.
In fact, Mr. Whitaker was the Legal Manager of Times Newspapers Limited and his salary - which was fixed - covered all the services which he rendered. Since there is nothing to show that he received £7,500 over and above his ordinary remuneration, I do not accept that this item of the costs was actually incurred. I would therefore assess the amount to be paid to the applicants at £15,126.78.