Resolution ResDH(2005)100
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 17 July 2003 (final on 17 October 2003)
in the case of Perry against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 October 2005
at the 940th 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Perry case delivered on 17 July 2003 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. 63737/00) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 October 2000 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Stephen Arthur Perry, a British national, and that the Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the violation of the applicant's right to respect for his private life on account of his being videotaped without his knowledge by the police for identification purposes in the context of criminal proceedings brought against him in 1997;
Whereas in its judgment of 17 July 2003 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 8 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, 1 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 9 500 euros in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted in pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of settlement and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable 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 17 July 2003, 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 drew the Committee's attention to the fact that, on account of the specific circumstances of the case, new similar violations of the Convention could be avoided in the future by informing the authorities concerned of the requirements of the Convention: copies of the judgment had accordingly been sent out together with a circular to Chief Constables, Heads of Criminal Investigation Departments and human rights champions appointed within the police force. This circular draws attention to the standards existing under the relevant Code of Practice and to the consequences of a failure by police officers dealing with video film identification to apply these standards; in addition, the Court's judgment has been published in the European Human Rights Report under reference (2004)39 EHRR 3;
Having satisfied itself that within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 17 July 2003,
Declares, after having examined 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