Resolution ResDH(2000)123
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 23 September 1998
in the case of McLeod against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 October 2000
at the 721st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the McLeod case delivered on 23 September 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 24755/94) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 May 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Sally McLeod, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints that the entry of the police into the applicant’s house to prevent a breach of the peace and the subsequent failure of the courts to grant her legal protection amounted to a violation of her rights to respect for her home and private life and to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 11 July 1997;
Whereas in its judgment of 23 September 1998 the Court:
- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, and that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 15 000 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses 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;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of former Article 54 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 23 September 1998, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 53 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 on 14 January 1999 and 19 February 1999 the Government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 23 September 1998, including the default interest due,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2000)123
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the McLeod case
by the Committee of Ministers
On 8 June 1999, the Operational Policing Policy Unit at the Home Office addressed a letter to the Public Order Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers containing some guidelines. In this letter, apart from referring to the particular facts of the McLeod case and the finding of the violation by the European Court of Human Rights, attention was drawn to the fact that “before the police enter private premises to prevent a breach of the peace, they need to have reason to believe that disorder might occur”.
Furthermore, a copy of the above-mentioned letter, including a copy of the judgment as to the law, has also been sent to the Director National of Police Training and to the Principal of Education, Training Support at Harrogate.
The Government of the United Kingdom is of the opinion that this will prevent the repetition of the kind of violation found in the present case and consider, accordingly, that it has fulfilled its obligations under former Article 54 of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy