European Court of Human Rights  
Case of Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom

Procedure

1. The case was referred to the Court as two separate cases (Sheffield v. the United Kingdom and Horsham v. the United Kingdom) by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 4 March 1997 within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention"). The case of Sheffield v. the United Kingdom originated in an application (no. 22885/93) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 of the Convention by Miss Kristina Sheffield, a British citizen, on 4 August 1993. The case of Horsham v. the United Kingdom originated in an application (no. 23390/94) lodged against the same Contracting State on the same date by Miss Rachel Horsham, also a British national.

The Commission's requests referred to Articles 44 and 48 of the Convention and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 46. The object of the requests was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the cases disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).

3. On 19 March 1997 the then President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal, decided, under Rule 21 § 7 and in the interests of the proper administration of justice, that a single Chamber should be constituted to consider both cases simultaneously, without prejudice to the joinder of the cases at a later stage.

4. The Chamber to be constituted for that purpose (Rule 21 § 7) included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention), and Mr Bernhardt, the then Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 § 4 (b)). On 19 March 1997, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr N. Valticos, Mrs E. Palm, Mr A.N. Loizou, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr K. Jungwiert and Mr T. Pantiru (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 5).

5. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the United Kingdom Government ("the Government"), the applicants' lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 § 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government's and the applicants' memorials on 22 October and 24 October 1997 respectively.

6. On 28 May 1997 the President of the Chamber granted Liberty, a non-governmental organisation based in London, leave to submit written comments on the case (Rule 37 § 2). These were received on 27 October 1997 and communicated to the applicants, the Agent and the Delegate of the Commission for observation. The applicants submitted observations on Liberty's comments by letter received at the registry on 30 January 1998.

7. In accordance with the President's decision, the joint hearing of both cases took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 24 February 1998. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government
Ms S. McCRORY, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent,
Mr D. PANNICK, QC,
Mr R. SINGH, Counsel,
Mr J. TALBOT,
Ms C. LLOYD,
Ms R. SANDBY-THOMAS, Advisers;

(b) for the Commission
Ms G. THUNE, Delegate;

(c) for the applicants
Mr P. DUFFY,
Mr A. McFARLANE,
Mr T. EICKE, Counsel,
Mr H. BRANDMAN, Solicitor.

The Court heard addresses by Mrs Thune, Mr Duffy, Mr McFarlane and Mr Pannick.

8. Following deliberations on 2 March 1998 the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of a Grand Chamber (Rule 51 § 1).

9. The Grand Chamber to be constituted included ex officio the Vice-President of the Court, Mr R. Bernhardt, and the other members and the four substitute members of the Chamber which had relinquished jurisdiction, the latter being Mr P. van Dijk, Mr V. Butkevych, Mr J. Casadevall and Mr A. Spielmann (Rule 51 § 2 (a) and (b). On 2 March 1998, in the presence of the Registrar, the Vice-President drew by lot the names of the eight judges called on to complete the Grand Chamber, namely Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr F. Matscher, Mr B. Walsh, Mr L.M. Morenilla, Mr L. Wildhaber, Mr P. Küris, Mr E. Levits and Mr M. Voicu (Rule 51 § 2(c) ). Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha subsequently replaced Mr Walsh following the latter's death (Rule 24 § 1 in conjunction with Rule 51 § 6). At a later stage, Mr Levits was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case and was not replaced.

10. Having taken note of the opinions of the Agent of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the applicants, the Grand Chamber decided on 25 April 1998 that it was not necessary to hold a further hearing following the relinquishment of jurisdiction by the original Chamber (Rule 40 in conjunction with Rule 51 § 6).

11. On 25 April 1998 the Grand Chamber ordered the joinder of the two cases (Rule 39 § 3 in fine).