Resolution ResDH(2001)63
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 December 2000 (Grand Chamber)
in the case of Varey against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 April 2001
at the 749th 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 final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Varey case delivered on 21 December 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on the same date under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 26662/95) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 December 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by two British nationals Mr Joseph Varey and Ms Mary Varey, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to the fact that planning and enforcement measures taken against the applicants in respect of their occupation of their land in their caravans violated their right to respect for home, family and private life (complaint under Article 8), that they had been deprived of the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal to challenge the decision taken by the planning authorities (complaint under Article 6) and that they had been discriminated against because they are gypsies (complaint under Article 14);
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 30 October 1999 and by the Government of the respondent State on 10 December 1999;
Whereas in its judgment of 21 December 2000 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the Government of the respondent State and the applicants, 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 the case out of its list;
Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the respondent State would pay the applicants the sum of 60 000 pounds sterling in full and final settlement of their complaints under the Convention and the sum of 15 000 pounds sterling, in respect of the applicants’ legal costs;
Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that on 20 July 2000 the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in the present case to conform to the Court’s judgment,
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