Resolution ResDH(2006)28
concerning four judgments delivered by the European Court concerning length of proceedings before civil courts in the United Kingdom:
- case of Davies, judgment of 16 July 2002, final on 16 October 2002
- case of Foley, judgment of 22 October 2002, final on 22 January 2003
- case of Mitchell et Holloway, judgment of 17 December 2002, final on 21 May 2003
- case of Price et Lowe, judgment of 29 July 2003, final on 3 December 2003
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 2006,
at the 966th 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 (referred to hereinafter as “the Convention”);
Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in these four case (see Appendix) and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that these cases originated in applications lodged against the United Kingdom (see details in the Appendix) with the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention and that the European Court of Human Rights, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicants’ complaints that the proceedings in which they had been involved before civil courts were excessively lengthy;
Recalling that in all theses cases the Court held:
- that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- that the United Kingdom had to pay the applicants certain amounts in just satisfaction (see details in Appendix);
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following the judgments of the Court, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by them;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found by the European Court in the present cases; this information appears in the Appendix to this Resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums awarded by the Court’s judgments (see Appendix) and noting that all proceedings had ended at the time the Court rendered its judgments so that no question of their acceleration has been raised;
Having also noted with interest the efforts under way to secure an effective remedy in all cases of excessively lengthy proceedings, taking particularly into account the Committee’s Recommendation to member States Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies,
Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 46 of the Convention in these cases.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)28
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination by the Committee of Ministers
of the cases o: Davies; Foley; Mitchell and Holloway; Price and Lowe
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
Cases
Application
Judgment
Just satisfaction
Payment deadline
Date of Payment
Default interest due
Vernon John Davies
42007/98
16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002, rectified on 03/09/2002
Non-pecuniary damages: 4 500 euros;
Costs and expenses : 10 000 British pounds
16/01/2003
24/01/2003
Waived by applicant
Patrick Grattan Foley
39197/98
22/10/2002 final on 22/01/2003
Non-pecuniary damages: 4 000 euros;
Costs and expenses: 500 euros
22/04/2003
17/03/2003
None
Geoffrey Mitchell and Louis Holloway
44808/98
17/12/2002final on 21/05/2003
Non-pecuniary damages: 5 000 euros;
Costs and expenses: 15 000 euros
21/08/2003
15/08/2003
None
John Harding Price and Mary Hazel Lowe
43185/98 43186/98
29/07/2003 final on 03/12/2003
Non-pecuniary damages: 1 000 euros to each applicant;
Costs and expenses: 500 euros to each applicant
03/03/2004
23/02/2004
None
All proceedings had ended at the time of delivery of these judgments by the European Court. No claim for individual measures was submitted.
II.General measures
The United Kingdom Government recalls that the facts in these cases relate to excessively lengthy proceedings before civil courts in England from July 1984 to April 1999.
II.1 Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgments
The European Court’s judgments in the cases of Mitchell and Holloway and Price and Lowe have been sent out to the relevant court administrations. In addition, the European Court’s judgment in the case of Davies has been published at (2002) 35 European Human Rights Reports (EHRR) 29; the judgment in the case of Mitchell and Holloway has been published at (2003) 36 EHRR 52. The judgment in the case of Price and Lowe has been published on the JUSTIS website (), one of the leading UK websites used by the legal profession.
II.2 Adoption of new legislation aimed at accelerating civil proceedings
On 26 April 1999 the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) came into force. According to Rule 1.1 of the CPR, the overriding objective of the new civil procedure rules is to enable courts to deal with cases justly. Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable:
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.
The major changes introduced by the CPR are the following:
Pre-action settlement in order to avoid litigation
The new procedural code contains important rules applying to the pre-action stage (i.e. before the issue of proceedings), called the Pre-Action Protocols. Failure to comply with these Protocols may result in the imposition of sanctions in any subsequent litigation. Their purpose is to promote settlement without recourse to litigation and to ensure that where litigation does ensue, the case is better prepared and the key issues identified from the outset.
New case-tracking system
Cases are now allocated to one of three tracks. Allocation takes place shortly after a defence has been filed. The three tracks are:
Small claims track - claims of no more than £5000, which are to be dealt with quickly and informally, often without the need for legal representation or a full hearing.Fast track - claims of between £5000 and £15 000, which are subject to a simplified Court procedure and a fixed timetable designed to enable the claim to be determined within 30 weeks.Multi-track - claims of £15 000 or more which are to be managed by the courts. In these cases, the court and the parties are required to agree a bespoke timetable for the resolution of the case and to ensure that the litigation is appropriately managed through case-management conferences.
Introduction of active case-management by courts
After allocation, courts now give directions setting out the procedures to be followed in bringing cases to trial.
In most cases these directions are given at a case-management conference which must be held soon after track allocation. A procedural judge reviews the case thoroughly (including the likely cost of the litigation) with the lawyers involved and decides what needs to be done to bring the case to trial, what factual evidence is required and whether any expert evidence is necessary. A timetable is fixed providing deadlines by which the necessary action must be taken.
In some cases a representative of the clients is expected to attend this meeting, particularly if there is a prospect that the court will wish to encourage the parties to explore settlement possibilities, for example, by using mediation techniques. That person will have to be familiar with the case and possess sufficient authority to deal with any issues which are likely to arise.
Most importantly, the court may also fix a provisional date for the trial. This leads to hearings taking place much more quickly than before.
Systems are in place to enable the courts to monitor progress after fixing trial dates and the court will convene a further meeting if progress does not match expectations. Sanctions may be imposed on parties responsible for any delay.
II.3 Evaluation of and follow-up to the legislative reforms
The CPR have radically changed and accelerated proceedings before civil courts in England and Wales. In 2004, the period between allocation to a track and trial was less than 15 weeks in 84 % of all small- track cases, less than 30 weeks in 80 % of fast-track cases and less than 50 weeks in 75 % of multi-track cases. The positive effects of the CPR are also attested to by the fact that no similar cases have been brought before the European Court since the entry into force of the CPR.
The stewardship of the CPR rests with a “standing committee” of senior judges, lawyers and representatives from relevant consumer and voluntary sector organisations. Following appropriate consultation, it is this committee whch approves changes to the code. In addition, a policy division of the Department for Constitutional Affairs keeps civil procedure policy under constant review and both responds to and initiates new policy proposals. Ideas for new ways of improving civil procedure are collected from a wide range of sources – from practitioners, from organisations with an interest in civil justice, from the judiciary and from within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Such ideas also include ensuring that an effective remedy exists in cases of excessively lengthy proceedings. In this context, the United Kingdom authorities are bearing in mind in particular the Committee’s Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies.
III.Conclusion
The Government of the United Kingdom considers, in view of the measures taken, that the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases have been remedied and that the United Kingdom has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy