Resolution ResDH(2001)160
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 26 September 2000 (final on 26 December 2000)
in the case of Oldham against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001
at the 775th 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 Oldham case delivered on 26 September 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. 36273/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 July 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Eric Oldham, a British national, and that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint that the applicant, a discretionary life prisoner, had been unable to obtain a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention since the next hearing concerning his case before the Parole Board had been scheduled in two years’ time;
Whereas in its judgment of 26 September 2000 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, 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, 1 000 pounds sterling in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 500 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses less 4 100 French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable at the date of delivery of the judgment and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7,5% would be payable on those sums 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 26 September 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 that found in this case, notably through the adoption of sections 28 to 34 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 of 1 October 1997 (see Resolution DH (98) 149 in the Hussain case against the United Kingdom and Resolution DH (98) 150 in the Singh case against the United Kingdom), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 29 December 2000, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 26 September 2000,
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