Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)227[1]
Subner contre le Royaume-Uni
Exécution de la décision de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 46850/10, décision du 29 novembre 2011)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 39, paragraphe 4, de la Convention pour la sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des termes des règlements amiables tels qu’ils figurent dans les décisions de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après « la Convention » et « la Cour ») ;
Considérant que dans cette affaires la Cour, ayant pris acte d’un règlement amiable auquel avaient abouti le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur et la partie requérante, et s’étant assurée que le règlement était basé sur le respect des droits de l’homme tel que défini dans la Convention ou ses Protocoles, a décidé de rayer l’affaire du rôle ;
S’étant assuré de l’exécution des termes du règlement amiable par le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur (voir document DH-DD(2012)592E) ;
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 39, paragraphe 4, de la Convention et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report[2]
Name of Case: Application no. 46850/10, SUBNER v the United Kingdom
Decision following friendly settlement
Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 1 June 2012
Case Summary
1.Case description:
-The applicant, formerly an operating department practitioner at King’s College Hospital Trust, was struck off the register of operating department practitioners following a hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health Professions Council (HPC) at which the Committee found him to have been guilty of misconduct and his fitness to practise to be impaired. He appealed to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that although the relevant practice direction on appeals allowed certain healthcare professionals (such as doctors, dentists and nurses) the right to an appeal by way of rehearing from decisions of their professional bodies, this right did not apply to appeals from decisions of the HPC. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The applicant complained that the decision of the High Court to consider his appeal by way of review and not by way of re-hearing was in violation of Article 6 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and that the appeal system was in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
-The Government and the applicant reached a friendly settlement, under the terms of which the Government agreed to pay the applicant GBP 50,000 (approximately EUR 57,107) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The Government also informed the Court that they were seeking to amend paragraph 22.3 of Practice Direction 52 of the Civil Procedural Rules such that appeals from decisions of the Health Professions Council would be heard by way of re-hearing by the High Court. On this basis the Court decided to strike the case out of its list.
Individual Measures
2.Just satisfaction:
-The just satisfaction award has been paid and evidence has been supplied.
General Measures
3.General measures:
-Practice Direction 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules has been amended to allow High Court appeals against decisions on fitness to practise for health care professionals to be by way of full hearing rather than a review as part of the 57th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The amendments came into force on 1 October 2011.
-Paragraph 22.3(1)(j) read in conjunction with paragraph 22.1 now provides that appeals under article 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001 are to be heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.
-The link below to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) website confirms that the Practice Direction
52 update came into force on 1/10/2011:
4.Publication:
-The decision has been published in:
-Emplaw Online
-Vlex
5.Dissemination:
-The update to Practice Direction 52 was disseminated to the courts in England and Wales on 1 October 2011. The Government therefore considers it unnecessary to disseminate the decision further.
6.State of execution of judgment:
-The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.
[1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2] En anglais uniquement.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy