The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the
Convention"),
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley delivered
on 30 August 1990 and 27 March 1991 and transmitted on those days
to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in three applications
against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission
of Human Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention on
16 June 1986 by Mr Bernard Fox and Ms Maire Campbell and on
2 September 1986 by Mr Samuel Hartley, all three Irish citizens,
who complained of their arrest and detention in Northern Ireland
for periods ranging from thirty to forty hours approximately
under Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
Act 1978;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 13 July 1989;
Whereas in its judgment of 30 August 1990 the Court:
- held by four votes to three that there had been
a breach of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention;
- held unanimously that there had been no breach of
Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2);
- held by four votes to three that there had been a breach of
Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5);
- held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the
complaints brought under Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and
Article 13 (art. 13);
- held unanimously that the question of the application of
Article 50 (art. 50) was not ready for decision;
Whereas in its judgment of 27 March 1991 the Court:
- held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay to the
applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses, the sum of
11 000 pounds, together with any value added tax that may be
chargeable;
- held by six votes to one that, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, the principal judgment in itself constituted sufficient
just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50);
- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to
inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of
the judgments of 30 August 1990 and 27 March 1991, having regard
to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention
to abide by them;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee
of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the
Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of
the judgments, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United
Kingdom has paid the applicants the sum provided for in the
judgment of 27 March 1991,
Declares, after having taken note of the information
supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has
exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the
Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (91)39
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the case of Fox, Campbell and
Hartley by the Committee of Ministers
As appears from paragraph 22 of the Court's judgment of
30 August 1990, Section 11, Sub-section 1 of the Northern Ireland
(Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which contained no requirement
that the suspicions of officers arresting suspects should be
"reasonable", was replaced by Section 6 of the Northern Ireland
(Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, which came into effect on
15 June 1987, subsequent to the facts which gave rise to the
present case.
This new provision is confined to conferring a power of
entry and search of premises for the purpose of arresting persons
under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act 1984 (now Section 14 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989). These latter
provisions expressly limit powers of arrest without a warrant to
cases in which there are "reasonable grounds" for suspicion.
In view of the above it is the Government's view that no
action needs to be taken with reference to the violation of
Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), found by the Court.
In fact, the Government of the United Kingdom considers
that, provided the national law complies with the state's
obligations under Article 5, paragraphs 1 to 4 (art. 5-1,
art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4), of the Convention, no question of
an "enforceable right to compensation" arises since Article 5,
paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), does not require in itself that
paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3,
art. 5-4) be incorporated into domestic law. As the Government
of the United Kingdom is not incorporating the Convention as such
into British law, and is not obliged to do so, it follows that
there is no basis on which it could legislate for Article 5,
paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention.
The sum of 12 650 pounds (including value added tax) awarded
jointly to the three applicants in respect of costs and expenses
was paid on 3 April 1991.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy