Resolution ResDH(2005)29
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 8 July 2003 – Grand Chamber
in the case of Hatton & others against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 April 2005
at the 922nd 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 case of Hatton and others delivered on 8 July 2003 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. 36022/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 May 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Ruth Hatton, Mr Peter Thake, Mr John Hartley, Ms Philippa Edmunds, Mr John Cavalla, Mr Jeffray Thomas, Mr Richard Bird and Mr Tony Anderson, United Kingdom nationals, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that government policy on night flights at Heathrow airport gave rise to a violation of their right to respect for their private and family lives and their home and that they were denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of this complaint;
Recalling that on 7 November 2000 the Chamber delivered its judgment;
Recalling that the government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber and that the Panel of the Grand Chamber accepted this request on 27 March 2002;
Whereas in its judgment of 8 July 2003, the Court:
- held, by twelve votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
- held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
- held, by fifteen votes to two, that the finding of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any damage sustained by the applicants;
- held, unanimously, that the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months, 50,000 Euros in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of settlement, including any tax that may have been chargeable; and that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest should be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- dismissed, by thirteen votes to four, the remainder of the applicants' 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 July 2003, 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment, this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 8 July 2003,
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.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2005)29
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the Hatton and others case
by the Committee of Ministers
At the time of the facts in this case, the scope of judicial review of administrative acts by the domestic courts was limited to alleged violations of domestic law. As a result, some alleged violations of the Convention, which were not necessarily violations of domestic law, could not be challenged before a judge or any other authority, thus leading to violations of Article 13 of the Convention, as in the present case.
On 2 October 2000 the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. This Act provides the possibility of challenging government acts before domestic courts on the basis of the Convention. National courts are thus empowered to conduct judicial review of administrative policies (including those dating from before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998) in accordance with the Convention's requirements.
The United Kingdom government provided an example of such a review (R v Secretary of State of the Home Department ex parte Daly, [2001] UKHL 26). In this case, a prison policy dating from before the entry into force of the Human Rights Act was challenged. The House of Lords concluded that following the entry into force of the Human Rights Act the courts, when conducting judicial review, are required to go beyond classic public-law concepts and examine the proportionality of the measures taken. Further, “domestic courts must themselves form a judgment whether a Convention right has been breached (...) and, so far as permissible under the Act, grant an effective remedy.” The prison policy concerned in this case was declared unlawful and void.
Moreover, the European Court's judgment in the Hatton case has been published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2003) 37 EHRR 28 and has been widely circulated to relevant officials within the government.
As regards the applicants' individual situation, the government observes that the European Court has considered the merits of their complaints and found no violation of Article 8 in the present case.
The government concludes that the Human Rights Act, as it is applied by the United Kingdom courts, clearly prevents new violations of the right to an effective remedy similar to that found in the present case and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy