Resolution ResDH(2006)29
concerning two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts in the United Kingdom:
- case of Somjee, judgment of 15 October 2002, final on 15 January 2003;
- case of Obasa, judgment of 16 January 2003, final on 16 April 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 the above two cases against the United Kingdom 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 or the European Court for Human Rights under Article 35, and that the Court, 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 labour courts were excessively lengthy;
Recalling that the Court in both cases held unanimously:
- 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 to prevent 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 other measures taken and 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, after having examined 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 these cases.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)29
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination by the Committee of Ministers
of the cases of Somjee and Obasa
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
Cases
Application
Judgment
Just satisfaction
Payment deadline
Date of Payment
Shehnaz Somjee
42116/98
15/10/2002, final on 15/01/2003
Non-pecuniary damages: 5 000 euros;
Costs and expenses : 2 500 euros
15/04/2003
01/04/2003
Olubukunola Obasa
50034/99
16/01/2003, final on 16/04/2003
Non-pecuniary damages: 5 000 euros;
Costs and expenses: 5 000 euros
16/07/2003
04/07/2003
All proceedings had ended at the time of delivery of the present 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 Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England from October 1988 to April 1999.
Following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the government adopted major regulatory measures and reinforced human resources to prevent similar violations, as follows:
II.1 Regulatory measures
(a) Internal procedural changes were introduced by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) at the end of 2002 to accelerate proceedings. As a consequence, the waiting time for cases has been reduced: the average waiting time in 2004 was less than 3 months.
(b) On 1 October 2004 the revised Employment Tribunals Regulations (Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1861, ) entered into force, introducing case- management discussions and greater case-management powers for Chairpersons of the Employment Tribunals. In addition, Chairpersons are now empowered to deliver default judgments in uncontested cases. Applications for review of default judgments must now be reasoned, and made within 14 days following notification of the judgment to the parties.
In this context, it should also be noted that monthly exception reports on all stays in the EAT are produced and checked to prevent similar violations to those found in these cases. Moreover, in 2004 the Employment Tribunals Service continued to meet the key performance targets agreed with Ministers for hearing applications.
II.2 Reinforcement of human resources
Since 2002 the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has been reinforced with seven more judges and may now sit throughout the year. In addition, six more recorders have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the EAT since 2000.
In conclusion, these general measures have accelerated proceedings before Employments Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales. Their positive effects are attested to by the fact that no cases similar to the present ones have been brought before the European Court.
It is also noted that future improvements will include ensuring that an effective remedy also 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.
II.3 Publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgments
The Somjee judgment has been published at (2003) 36 European Human Rights Reports 16 and sent out to Employment Tribunals and to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The Obasa judgment has been published on the Justis website () which is one of the leading UK websites used by the legal profession.
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 21, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy