Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)75[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Tsfayo against the United Kingdom
(Application No. 60860/00, judgment of 14 November 2006, rectified on 10 July 2007,
final on 10 October 2007)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of the (Housing Benefit Review Board (HBRB)) due to its composition (five elected councillors from the same local authority which would have been required to pay a percentage of the housing benefit if awarded) and to absence of subsequent control by a judicial body with full jurisdiction and providing all the required guarantees (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)75
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Tsfayo against the United Kingdom
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of a Housing Benefit Review Board (HBRB) to which the applicant had applied in September 1999 to resolve a dispute concerning housing benefit and assistance with local tax, on account of its composition (five elected councillors from the same local authority which would have been liable to pay a percentage of the housing benefit if awarded) and to absence of subsequent supervision by a judicial body with full powers and providing the necessary guarantees (violation of Article 6§1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
--
2 000 EUR
27 866 EUR
29 866 EUR
Paid on 09/01/2008
b) Individual measures
The European Court did not consider it appropriate to award just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary loss allegedly flowing from the outcome of the domestic proceedings. However, it awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage which she sustained as a result of the circumstances in which her claim for benefits was determined by the HBRB. In addition, it should be noted that, although the HBRB was not considered as an independent tribunal, there was no allegation of actual bias in the present case. Thus, the High Court, in refusing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, also dismissed the application on the merits on the grounds that the Board’s decision was neither unreasonable nor irrational.
II.General measures
The European Court noted that at the relevant time a claim for housing benefit was first considered by officials employed by the local authority housing department. If benefit was refused the claimant was entitled to a review of the decision, first by the local authority itself, then by a HBRB comprising up to five elected councillors from the local authority (§22 of the judgment).
Since July 2001 (before the delivery of the judgment in this case), HBRBs have been replaced by tribunals set up under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. There are no councillors on the new tribunals, which are entirely independent of the local authority and are able to investigate and question all facts which may be relevant.
In addition, the judgment of the European Court has been published and referred to in a number of law reports and articles.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy