KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
53
170. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 8 of the
Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
171. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to a fair hearing
in respect of the proceedings before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. He
relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which provides insofar as relevant
that:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a
fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”.
A. Admissibility
172. The Government contested the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to the
proceedings in question, arguing that there was no “civil right” in the
present case. The Court considers, in light of the parties' submissions, that
the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the
determination of which requires an examination of the merits. It therefore
concludes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.. It further notes that it is not
inadmissible on any other grounds. The complaint must therefore be
declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The applicability of Article 6 § 1
a. The parties' submissions
173. The applicant alleged that the proceedings before the IPT involved
the determination of his civil rights. This was the conclusion reached by the
IPT in its ruling on preliminary issues of law, in which it found that
Article 6 § 1 was applicable. The applicant referred to the Court's practice
whereby, where national courts had conducted a comprehensive and
convincing analysis on the basis of relevant Convention case-law and
principles, as in the present case, the Court would need very strong reasons
to depart from their conclusions and substitute its own views for those of
national courts in interpreting domestic law (citing, inter alia, Masson and
Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A;
and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 120, ECHR
2005-X). He concluded that the IPT was correct to find that Article 6 § 1
was applicable to the proceedings before it.