Presumption of innocence not breached by contemporaneous parliamentary inquiry and criminal proceedings

The European Court in Rywin v. Poland (read here) has found by a 4-3 majority  that the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights was not breached by the contemporaneous  carrying out of criminal proceedings and a parliamentary commission of inquiry into a corruption scandal which concerned a well-known film producer. The work of the commission of inquiry had given rise to extensive media comment and the lower house of Parliament had approved the commission’s report in which five high-ranking State officials were alleged to have been guilty of corruption in connection with the legislative procedure for the amendment of the Broadcasting Act and the film producer was mentioned as being the “agent” of those officials. The film producer was subsequently convicted of attempted fraud. The Court considered that the presumption of innocence had not been breached by the wording of the resolution setting up the parliamentary commission of inquiry and the findings of the commission’s report. The Court also found that there had been no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) or of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3. It considered that the reasoning of the judgments delivered by the criminal courts did not reveal anything to suggest that the judges had been influenced by the statements of the members of the commission or by the findings in its report and that the authorities had been attentive to the producer’s state of health during his imprisonment and that the general conditions of his detention could not be criticised.

Jeremy McBride acted for Mr Rywin.

Monckton team successfully defends Google against abuse of dominance claim

High Court dismisses claim against Google, holding that, where a pro-competitive innovation by a dominant company is alleged to have harmed competition on a related market, the effect on competition in that market must be serious or appreciable in order to constitute an abuse of dominance.

In a judgment handed down today, the High Court dismissed a claim for abuse of dominance brought against Google by online map provider Streetmap.

Streetmap alleged that, by displaying a clickable image of a map, taken from Google Maps, at the top of its search engine results page in response to certain search queries, Google gave Google Maps an unfair advantage over other online map providers, and thereby abused its (assumed) dominant position in the market for online search.

In an important judgment on the application of competition law (The prohibition on abuse of dominance is contained in Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998) in rapidly developing online markets, Mr Justice Roth rejected Streetmap’s case, holding that:

  • since the introduction of a clickable map image on its search page was a pro-competitive measure on the market where Google was dominant, for its conduct to be abusive, it had to be reasonably likely to have a serious or appreciable effect on competition in the related market for online maps;
  • on all the evidence, the introduction of the clickable map image on Google’s search page had not taken custom away from Streetmap.  Therefore, it was not reasonably likely to gives rise to anti-competitive foreclosure;
  • in any event, Google’s conduct was objectively justified.  Since the alternative technical solutions proposed by Streetmap would have entailed significant practical problems, or imposed a substantial additional burden on Google, it had not been required to implement them by any obligation of proportionality.

Google was represented by Jon Turner QC, Josh Holmes and Ben Lask.

To view the full judgment, please click here.

A full case note will be issued shortly.

European Law specialist, Professor Panos Koutrakos has joined Monckton Chambers

The members of Monckton Chambers welcome Panos Koutrakos, Professor of European Union Law and Jean Monnet Professor of European Law at City University, who has joined as a door tenant. The set and its members, many of whom are already widely recognised as leading authorities in the field of European law, proved a natural choice for the established academic as he develops a practice at the English Bar.

A graduate of the Universities of Athens and London and an Advocate of the Athens Bar (call 1996), Professor Koutrakos completed a stage at the European Commission in Brussels and holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham. Professor Koutrakos has also taught at the Universities of Bristol (Professor of EU Law: 2006-2012), Durham (Professor of Law: 2004-2006; Lecturer in Law: 1999-2002) and Birmingham (Reader in EU law: 2002-2004). In September 2007, he was awarded a Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law by the European Commission. He has held visiting posts at the Universities of Melbourne (2009, 2013), Sydney (2008, 2010), New South Wales (2013), Iowa (2000, 2002), Michigan (2005), and Antwerp (since 2008).

Professor Koutrakos’s interests cover a wide spectrum of EU law, including external relations, public law, and internal market. Professor Koutrakos is a leading authority on matters where EU and international law meet and has published, amongst others, EU International Relations Law 2nd edition (2015). He is Joint Editor of European Law Review.

See full profile.

Monckton Chambers supports the fifth annual Sir Jeremy Lever Lecture at Oxford University

The fifth annual Sir Jeremy Lever lecture was held on Friday 5th February by the Oxford University Law Faculty in combination with All Souls College. The lecture series celebrates the career of Sir Jeremy Lever KCMG, QC, a pioneer of both the practice and academic study of competition law in Europe.

The lecture titled “Personal Data Protection: The Contribution of the European Court of Human Rights” was given by Dean Spielmann, Former President of the European Court of Human Rights and chaired by The Rt Hon Sir Stephen Richards.

The event was followed by a celebratory dinner at All Souls College.

Anneli Howard listed in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 for 2016

Chambers is pleased to announce that Anneli Howard has been selected as one of only ten barristers named in this year’s The Lawyer’s Hot 100. The 100 lawyers on the list have been chosen for their “impact not just on the performance of their firms, companies or chambers, but also the wider business community”. The Lawyer Editor Catrin Griffiths describes the 100 as “ambassadors for the profession” and “champions of champions.”

The Lawyer writes about Anneli as follows:

“Anneli Howard has a string of top-name clients including Visa Europe, BT, Orange Telecom, Ryanair and the London Stock Exchange. She is also standing counsel to the Civil Aviation Authority.

In her field of competition law she is fast becoming the go-to junior at the bar, having earned a reputation for being a collaborative team player who gets the job done.

In the past year Howard successfully acted for Visa in its bid for a Commercial Court summary judgment in the ongoing interchange fees litigation. In doing so she persuaded the court to strike out more than 30 years’ potential damages sought by a group of 12 retailers, totalling over £500m. She will appear for Visa again later this year in a six-month trial on liability.

Howard thrives on managing cases, applying practical methods of cutting court procedures to help clients achieve their goals in a timely and cost-efficient manner.”

The annual supplement identifies members of the legal profession who have excelled in their chosen fields during the past year.

To view the full list please click here.

Monckton Chambers’ barristers feature in The Lawyer Top 20 cases for 2016

The Lawyer has published the Top 20 Cases due to be heard in 2016 and members of Monckton Chambers appear five times in this year’s list.  The highlighted barristers are involved in the “raft of litigation brought by numerous high-street retailers in the UK and Europe” and the allegations that Visa and MasterCard charged anti-competitive credit card fees.
Monckton Chambers’ members are involved as follows:
Daniel Beard QC and Ligia Osepciu are instructed by Stewarts Law partner Mo Bhaskaran for the second claimant, M&S.
Tim Ward QC and Rob Williams are instructed by Humphries Kerstetter partner Mark Humphries for the third claimant, Tesco.
Anneli Howard is part of the team, instructed by Linklaters partner Michael Sanders, for the first and second defendants, Visa UK and Europe.

Please click here to view the full article.

Monckton Announces New Silk

Monckton Chambers is very pleased to announce the appointment of Gerry Facenna to Queen’s Counsel.

The official swearing-in ceremony will take place on 22 February 2016.

The members and staff of Chambers warmly congratulate Gerry on his new appointment.

Supreme Court upholds ban on providing information to the ECtHR

The Chinese dissident Wang Yam was jailed for life for the murder of the reclusive author Allan Chappelow. In the criminal trial, for unspecified national security and witness protection reasons, the trial judge ordered that the defence case should be heard in secret.

Mr Yam subsequently applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (“ECtHR”), arguing that the secret trial constituted a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. By an order of the English court, however, Mr Yam was prevented from disclosing any information regarding the secret aspects of his trial, or the reasons for the secrecy, to the ECtHR.

On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the order, concluding that it was within the power of the lower court to prevent an applicant from placing material before the ECtHR. It held that it was for the ECtHR to decide whether such disclosure was really required and that, in any event, there was a common law power pursuant to which an order for non-disclosure to the ECtHR could be made. The case in the ECtHR remains ongoing.

A copy of the judgment can be found here.

Nikolaus Grubeck, led by Lord Pannick QC and Kirsty Brimelow QC, acted for the Appellant.

Press coverage includes: BBC, The Guardian, London Review of Books.

Medicines Regulator’s Inspection of Roche was lawful, says Court of Appeal

In a judgment released today, the Court of Appeal held that the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency had acted lawfully in carrying out inspections of Roche in late 2013 and in communicating material from that inspection to the European Medicines Agency.

On a previous inspection in 2012, critical deficiencies had been found in Roche’s pharmacovigilance system (pharmacovigilance is the obligation on a pharmaceutical company to monitor and pass on to the authorities reports of adverse reactions to, and lack of therapeutic effect of, its medicines).  The European Commission had then asked the EMA to consider action against Roche under the EU Penalties Regulation – action that could result in a large fine against Roche.

The 2013 inspections were carried out under the general MHRA’s powers to inspect: such inspections are routine in cases where critical deficiencies have previously been identified in order to ensure that the deficiencies have been corrected.  Roche’s claim that the MHRA had not acted lawfully centred on the fact that the EMA had, before the inspections, made a request under Article 8(3) of the Penalties Regulation for information derived from the inspections to be passed to the EMA.  Roche claimed that in the circumstances the MHRA had acted unfairly.  Roche also sought a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU on (a) whether the EMA had power to make such a request of the MHRA under Article 8(3) and (b) whether the MHRA was right to take the view, in its reports to the EMA, that the Roche company being inspected was responsible under the Penalties Regulation for pharmacovigilance deficiencies by another group company.

The Court of Appeal rejected its claim of unfairness and refused a reference.  On the question of unfairness, Sales LJ (giving the lead judgment) agreed with the trial judge (Carr J) that there was no unfairness.  The Court agreed with the MHRA’s submissions that the legislative framework clearly contemplated that information from routine inspections could be passed to the EMA and used in for the purposes of the Penalties Regulation.  The Court also agreed with the MHRA that it “rather strained credulity” that Roche’s experienced representatives during the inspections were “ingénus” who could not be taken to have understood that that was likely to happen.  In her concurring judgment, Arden LJ noted that where the EU legislator had created a regime such as the Penalties Regulation, with a number of procedural protections, the English court should be slow to find a breach of the common law duty of fairness.

The Court went further than had Carr J in upholding the MHRA’s case that it was acte clair that Article 8(3) permitted the EMA to make the request that it had made to the MHRA: there was therefore no basis for a reference to the CJEU.  But the Court also agreed with Carr J that, since the Article 8(3) request had not in fact affected to Roche’s disadvantage the information that would have been passed to the EMA in any event, the Court would not anyway have granted declaratory relief about that issue.  As to the question of Roche’s responsibility under the Penalties Regulation for deficiencies of its group company, the Court of Appeal agreed with the MHRA’s submissions that the situation where the MHRA might have expressed views to the EMA and European Commission (which would then have to decide if those views were right, any decision being challengeable on appeal to the General Court) was far from the type of situation where a court would grant declaratory relief of a view expressed by a Government department.

The judgment is important both for its account of the relationship between the Penalties Regulation and the powers of inspection set out in the Medicines Directive, but also more generally in dealing with the situations in which the Court will make references to the CJEU in a context where what is being sought is declaratory relief.

George Peretz QC represented the MHRA.

A copy of the judgment can be found here.

Challenge to East Anglia rail franchise specification dismissed

The High Court has today dismissed Enfield Council’s judicial review of the Department for Transport’s minimum service specification for the ongoing East Anglia rail franchise competition.

The East Anglia franchise serves 131 train stations, extending to Peterborough, Southend, Felixstowe and Cambridge, and includes a significant part of London.  A competition is underway to select the train operating company that will take over the operation of the rail services when the current franchise comes to an end in October 2016.

In September 2015 the Department for Transport issued to intending bidders for the franchise an Invitation To Tender (ITT), to which was attached a Train Service Requirement document setting out the minimum services to be provided at each station.  Enfield Council issued a judicial review claim challenging the ITT because, contrary to the Council’s expectation, the Train Service Requirement did not specify a service of 4 trains per hour throughout the day for Angel Road train station.  Instead, the Train Service Requirement specified a service for Angel Road station reaching 4 trains per hour only during the evening peak hours, meaning that the station is likely to be served by fewer trains at other times of the day.

The Council’s challenge alleged that the ‘failure’ to specify a service of 4 trains per hour throughout the day was unlawful because it breached the Council’s legitimate expectations arising from certain assurances given by Department for Transport officials.  The Council also alleged that the Department for Transport was unreasonable in basing its service specification on economic modelling that took account only of transport-related costs and benefits, and therefore did not give any weight to the risk to the viability of a new housing development project (known as the ‘Meridian Water’ scheme) in the Angel Road area in circumstances where a 4 trains per hour service was not provided.  The Council also argued that, by not taking account of that risk to a development that could make available a significant number of new ‘affordable homes’ in London, the Department for Transport had breached its duties under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

Dismissing the challenge in full, Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing held that the Council did not have a legitimate expectation for a 4 trains per hour service; and, further, the Department for Transport had been entitled to rely on economic modelling focussed on transport-related costs and benefits, and therefore to leave out of account the risk to the Council’s Meridian Water development scheme.  Such an approach was not contrary to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

Monckton barrister Alan Bates appeared on behalf of the Department for Transport.