Resolution ResDH(2002)41
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 8 February 2000
in the case of Caballero against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2002
at the 792nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Caballero case delivered on 8 February 2000 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 32819/96) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 June 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Clive Caballero, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that there had been an automatic denial of bail prior to his trial, motivated by his criminal record;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission, on 24 November 1998;
Whereas in its judgment of 8 February 2000 the Court unanimously:
- accepted the Government’s concession that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Convention;
- held that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
- held that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 5, paragraph 3;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 1 000 pounds sterling in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 15 250 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses inclusive of value-added tax, less the amount received in legal aid from the Council of Europe and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7,5% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 8 February 2000, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
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 that found in this case, most importantly through the legislative amendment of Section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by Section 56 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which entered into force on 30 September 1998, and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 23 May 2000, after expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 8 February 2000, and having taken note of the fact that the applicant has waived his right to default interest,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy