Resolution ResDH(2003)161
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 23 September 1998
in the case of Steel and others against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 October 2003
at the 854th 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 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 case of Steel and others delivered on 23 September 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 24838/94) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 May 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by five British nationals, Ms Helen Steel, Ms Rebecca Lush, Ms Andrea Needham, Mr David Polden and Mr Christopher Cole, and that the Commission declared admissible the applicants’ complaint concerning in particular the lawfulness of their arrest and detention pending trial for causing a breach of the peace in the context of various demonstrations in which they took part, as well as the further detention of the first two applicants following their refusal to be bound over for twelve months to keep peace and be of good behaviour;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 9 July 1997;
Whereas in its judgment of 23 September 1998 the Court:
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Articles 5, paragraph 3, 6, paragraph 2, 6, paragraph 3 (b) and (c), 11 or 13 of the Convention;
- held, by seven votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the first applicant;
- held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the arrest and initial detention of the second applicant;
- held, unanimously, that, inasmuch as the third, fourth and fifth applicants had caused no breach of peace, their arrest and detention had not been in accordance with English law and constituted therefore a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held, by eight votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the detention of the first and second applicants for refusing to agree to be bound over;
- held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention;
- held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) of the Convention;
- held by five votes to four that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant;
- held by seven votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant;
- held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the third, fourth and fifth applicants, as the measures taken against them were not prescribed by the English law and constituted therefore a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression;
- held unanimously:
(a) that the government of the respondent state was to pay to each of the third, fourth and fifth applicants, within three months, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 500 pounds sterling;
(b) that the government of the respondent state was to pay to the third, fourth and fifth applicants, within three months, in respect of legal costs and expenses, a total of 20 000 pounds sterling, less 46 747 French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment, together with any value-added tax which may be payable;
(c) that simple interest at an annual rate of 7,5% should be payable on the above sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
(d) dismissed unanimously the remainder of the 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 as amended by Protocol No. 11, these Rules are applicable by decision of the Committee of Ministers to cases under former Article 54;
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 former 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 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 for the future by informing the authorities concerned of the requirements of the Convention: copies of the judgment have accordingly been sent out to them and the Court’s judgment has been published, inter alia, in the legal journal European Human Rights Reports, (1999) 28, part 6, pp. 603-652;
Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state paid the applicants, within the time-limit set, the sum provided for in the judgment of 23 September 1998,
Declares, after having examined 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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy