2
SAUNDERS v. UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the Government") on
9 and 13 September 1994 respectively, within the three-month period laid
down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention"). It originated in an application (no. 19187/91) against
the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25)
by Mr Ernest Saunders, a British citizen, on 20 July 1988.
The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48)
and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the
request and of the Government’s application was to obtain a decision as to
whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of
its obligations under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1).
2.
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take
part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent him
(Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland,
the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention)
(art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21
para. 3 (b)). On 24 September 1994, in the presence of the Registrar, the
President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely
Mr R. Bernhardt, Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr F. Gölcüklü, Mr J.M.
Morenilla, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr B. Repik and Mr P. Kuris (Article 43 in
fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently
Mr N. Valticos, substitute judge, replaced Mr Ryssdal, who was unable to
take part in the further consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24
para. 1). Mr Bernhardt succeeded Mr Ryssdal as President of the Chamber.
4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Bernhardt, acting
through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the
applicant’s lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation
of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in
consequence, the Registrar received the applicant’s memorial on
16 February 1995 and the Government’s memorial on 27 February 1995.
5. On 22 March 1995 the President of the Chamber granted permission
to Liberty, pursuant to Rule 37 para. 2, to submit written comments on
specified aspects of the case. These were received on 31 July 1995. The
Government submitted a reply on 3 October.
6. On 28 April 1995 the Chamber, after considering written submissions
from the applicant and the Government, granted a request by the
Government to adjourn the hearing pending a decision of the Court of
Appeal to which the applicant’s case had been referred by the Secretary of
State (see paragraph 39 below). Following the decision of the Court of
Appeal on 27 November 1995 the applicant submitted a further memorial