Resolution ResDH(2001)73
Concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 14 March 2000 (final on 14 June 2000)
in the case of Stephen Jordan against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2001
at the 757th 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Stephen Jordan case delivered on 14 March 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 30280/96) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 February 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Stephen Jordan, a British national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicant’s complaints concerning the lack of independence of a court martial and the absence of an enforceable right to compensation in this respect;
Whereas in its judgment of 14 March 2000 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention;
- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 3 500 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses including any added tax-value that may be chargeable and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7,5% would be payable on this sum 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 14 March 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 those found in this case, 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 Findlay case against the United Kingdom and Resolution DH (98) 12 in the Coyne case against the United Kingdom); and through the entry into force on 1 April 1997 of the Investigation and Summary Dealing (Army) Regulations of 1997, of which Rules 20 to 24 provide remedies to the shortcoming found in the military system of detention before trial (see Resolution DH (2000) 82 in the Hood case against the United Kingdom); finally the government of the respondent state indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 19 September 2000, after expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 14 March 2000, and having taken note of the fact that the applicant had waived his right to default interest in view of the minimal sum involved,
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