Resolution ResDH(2003)10
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 5 June 2001 (final on 5 September 2001)
in the case of Mills against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 February 2003
at the 827th 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 Mills case delivered on 5 June 2001 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. 35685/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 9 April 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Simon John Mills, a British national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that, with respect to certain proceedings against him before a court martial, he had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law;
Whereas in its judgment of 5 June 2001 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that the finding of a violation had been constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any-pecuniary damage;
- 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, 1 000 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses, inclusive of any value add tax 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 5 June 2001, 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 that found in this case, notably 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 of 1955 (see e.g., Resolution DH(98)11 in the case of Findlay against the United Kingdom and Resolution DH(98)12 in the case of Coyne against the United Kingdom);
Having satisfied itself that on 20 June 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 5 June 2001,
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