Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)145[1]
McCann against the United Kingdom
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No 19009/04, judgment of 13 May 2008, final on 13 August 2008)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2011)1161);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2011)1161);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Plan/Action Report and Updates Template
Name of Case McCann v United Kingdom (application no. 19009/04; judgment final on
13 May 2008) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government
on 8th August 2008
Case Summary
1.Case description:
-This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home following his eviction in 2005, pursuant to the service of a common law ‘notice to quit’, without the possibility to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal
- The Court that the lack of adequate procedural safeguards resulted in a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (§55).
Individual Measures
2.Just satisfaction:
-The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously supplied.
3.Individual measures:
-The Government considers no further individual measures are necessary in light of the Court finding an Article 8 violation in its procedural aspect only, and its observation that “it is far from clear whether a domestic tribunal in a position to assess the proportionality of the eviction would not still have granted the order” (§59).
General Measures
4.Publication:
-The judgment of the European Court was widely published, for example [2008] All ER (D) 146 (May); [2008] Fam. Law 729; Times, 23 May 2008. Furthermore, several articles and case comments have been published with respect to the judgment.
5.Dissemination:
-Given the substantial commentary on the judgment, the Government does not consider it necessary to disseminate it to local authorities.
6.Other general measures:
-The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the outstanding ECHR issues were clarified by the UK Supreme Court in the case of Pinnock v Manchester City Council, in which the Department intervened. Judgment in Pinnock was given on 3rd November 2010.
-Pinnock clarified the law in relation to possession proceedings. The Justices also invited written submissions on the effect of Kay v UK as the judgment was handed down after the oral hearing in Pinnock in July 2010. Pinnock has now modified the law as set out in the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth. It also takes into account the McCann decision. Consistently with the judgment in Kay v UK, it holds that, in principle, any public sector occupier at risk of losing their home must have the opportunity to have the proportionality of that step considered by the county court. This consideration can include factors such as the occupier’s personal circumstances.
-Pinnock analyses the Strasbourg jurisprudence from para 30 of the judgment, and expressly considers McCann at para 35. Pinnock marks a significant clarification of the law since the McCann case was before the ECtHR. As the Supreme Court’s decision sets a binding precedent for lower courts, the Department does not consider that any further steps are necessary to implement the judgment.
7.-The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 1150th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy