Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)227[1]
Subner against the United Kingdom
Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 46850/10, decision of 29 November 2011)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Considering that in this case the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike this case out of its list;
Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly-settlement were executed by the respondent State (see document DH-DD(2012)592E);
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and
DECIDES to close its examination.
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report
Name of Case: Application no. 46850/10, SUBNER v the United Kingdom
Decision following friendly settlement
Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 1 June 2012
Case Summary
1.Case description:
-The applicant, formerly an operating department practitioner at King’s College Hospital Trust, was struck off the register of operating department practitioners following a hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health Professions Council (HPC) at which the Committee found him to have been guilty of misconduct and his fitness to practise to be impaired. He appealed to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that although the relevant practice direction on appeals allowed certain healthcare professionals (such as doctors, dentists and nurses) the right to an appeal by way of rehearing from decisions of their professional bodies, this right did not apply to appeals from decisions of the HPC. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. The applicant complained that the decision of the High Court to consider his appeal by way of review and not by way of re-hearing was in violation of Article 6 read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and that the appeal system was in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
-The Government and the applicant reached a friendly settlement, under the terms of which the Government agreed to pay the applicant GBP 50,000 (approximately EUR 57,107) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The Government also informed the Court that they were seeking to amend paragraph 22.3 of Practice Direction 52 of the Civil Procedural Rules such that appeals from decisions of the Health Professions Council would be heard by way of re-hearing by the High Court. On this basis the Court decided to strike the case out of its list.
Individual Measures
2.Just satisfaction:
-The just satisfaction award has been paid and evidence has been supplied.
General Measures
3.General measures:
-Practice Direction 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules has been amended to allow High Court appeals against decisions on fitness to practise for health care professionals to be by way of full hearing rather than a review as part of the 57th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules. The amendments came into force on 1 October 2011.
-Paragraph 22.3(1)(j) read in conjunction with paragraph 22.1 now provides that appeals under article 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001 are to be heard in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.
-The link below to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) website confirms that the Practice Direction
52 update came into force on 1/10/2011:
4.Publication:
-The decision has been published in:
-Emplaw Online
-Vlex
5.Dissemination:
-The update to Practice Direction 52 was disseminated to the courts in England and Wales on 1 October 2011. The Government therefore considers it unnecessary to disseminate the decision further.
6.State of execution of judgment:
-The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy