Final Resolution ResDH(2001)121
Human Rights
Application No. 35095/97
Ainsworth against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 October 2001
at the 764th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (2000) 85, adopted on 29 May 2000 in the case of Ainsworth against the United Kingdom, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the absence of independence and impartiality of a Court-Martial convened pursuant to the 1955 Army Act and of the unfairness of the proceedings, of the non-respect of other procedural guarantees provided in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, including the absence of a public hearing before a tribunal established by law, and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 30 October 1999;
Whereas at the 716th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 24 July 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 8 225 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 29 May 2000 and 24 July 2000, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as those found in this case, notably through the entry into force on 1 April 1997 of the Armed Forces Act 1996 which amended the relevant provisions of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 (see Resolution DH (98) 11 in the case of Findlay against the United Kingdom and Resolution DH (98) 12 in the case of Coyne against the United Kingdom), and indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 5 January 2001, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the total sum of 8 351,19 pounds sterling as just satisfaction including default interests due,
Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy