Resolution ResDH(2001)162
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 6 February 2001
in the case of Wilkinson and Allen against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001
at the 775th 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 Wilkinson and Allen case delivered on 6 February 2001 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in two applications (Nos. 31145/96 and 35580/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 April 1996 and 1 April 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Mark Wilkinson and Mr Kevin Allen, two British nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of courts martial and the consequent non-respect of the applicants’ right to a fair trial;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the government of the respondent state on 27 September 1999;
Whereas in its judgment of 6 February 2001 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that the finding of violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction a for any non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants;
- held that the government the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months, respectively, 1 988,10 pounds sterling and 1 022,25 pounds sterling, for costs and expenses which figures are inclusive of any value-added tax that may be chargeable, and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7,5% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ 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 6 February 2001, 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 recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, notably through the modification of the provisions in the Army Act 1955 by the Armed Forces Act 1996 which entered into force on 1 April 1997, (see Resolutions DH (98) 11 in the Coyne case against the United Kingdom and DH (98) 12 in the Findlay case against the United Kingdom), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that on 17 May 2001, after expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 6 February 2001, and having taken note of the fact that the applicants has waived their right to default interest in view of the minimal sum involved,
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