SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
26
submissions suggested that the Court should at least take the new regime
into account as remedying breaches of the Convention which had previously
existed, they stated at the hearings that they were not seeking a ruling on its
compatibility with the Convention.
79. In general, it is not the Court’s task to rule on legislation in
abstracto; indeed, at the time of the events giving rise to this case, the new
regime was not yet in force. Its compatibility with the Convention therefore
cannot be examined by the Court (see notably, mutatis mutandis, the
National Union of Belgian Police judgment of 27 October 1975, Series A
no. 19, p. 17, § 36, and the above-mentioned Ireland v. the United Kingdom
judgment, Series A no. 25, p. 72, § 189). However, the Court notes with
satisfaction that, following its Golder judgment of 21 February 1975 (Series
A no. 18) on the one hand and as a result of the applications in which this
case originated on the other, substantial changes have been made by the
United Kingdom with a view to ensuring the observance of the engagements
undertaken by it in the Convention.
II. THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
80. Mr. Silver claimed that the refusal of his 1972 and 1973 petitions to
the Home Secretary for permission to seek legal advice (see paragraph 12
above) constituted a denial of access to the courts, in violation of Article 6 §
1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in its abovementioned Golder judgment. The Article (art. 6-1), so far as is relevant,
reads:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time
by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
The Court will confine itself to the 1972 petition: the Commission found
it not to have been established that the 1973 petition had been refused and
the point was not pursued before the Court.
81. The Government’s principal plea was that the Court should decline to
rule on the matter in light of the changes made to the law and practice since
the Golder judgment (see, inter alia, paragraph 32 above).
The Court is unable to accept this plea. The changes in question were
introduced, firstly, to give effect to the terms of that judgment and,
secondly, as a result of the proceedings before the Commission in the
present case. Nevertheless, dating as they do from 1975 and 1981, they
clearly could not have restored the right claimed by Mr. Silver under Article
6 § 1 (art. 6-1); it is therefore not possible to speak of a "solution", even
partial, "of the matter" (see, mutatis mutandis, Rule 47 § 2 of the Rules of
Court and the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981,
Series A no. 46, p. 27, § 64). In addition, the memorial of 22 September