Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 60682/00

The Court found therefore in the Whitfield and Others case that those applicants" doubts about the independence and impartiality of their adjudications were objectively justified, that their adjudications were consequently unfair and that there had been therefore a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2003 XII, the latter citing Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I)).

Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 60682/00

The Court has already found in the case of Whitfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 46387/99, 48906/99, 57410/00 and 57419/00, § 45, 12 April 2005, a direct application of the above-cited Ezeh and Connors judgment) that, since Governors were answerable to the Home Office, drafted and laid the charges against the applicants, investigated and prosecuted those charges and determined the applicants" guilt or innocence together with their sentences, it could not be said that there was any structural independence between those charged with the roles of prosecution and adjudication.

Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 60682/00

She argued that she had established a causal link between the violations established and a loss of real opportunity (Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, § 35; Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25282/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95 and 28456/95, §§ 80-81, 12 October 1979, and the above-cited Ezeh and Connors judgment, § 112).

Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 60682/00

Its aim was to maintain discipline within the prison and there was no apparent civilian criminal equivalent (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 71).