Application No. 12672/87
by Jennifer GETTENS and Timothy LAMBERT
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 May 1988, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 March 1984
by Jennifer GETTENS and Timothy LAMBERT against the United Kingdom and
registered on 29 January 1987 under file No. 12672/87;
Having regard to:
- reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 12 March 1987 to bring
the application to the notice of the respondent Government
and invite them to submit written observations on its
admissibilty and merits;
- ii -
- the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February 1988;
- the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicants'
representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, United Kingdom citizens, are mother and son,
and they live in Berkshire. The second applicant was born in December
1971. The applicants are represented before the Commission by Messrs.
Binks, Stern and Partners, Solicitors, London.
On 29 September 1983, the second applicant was caned by the
headmaster of his state school after an incident in which he was
allegedly bullied by other boys into removing chains from wash basins
and toilets. The first applicant had earlier made known to the school
her opposition to corporal punishment in connection with the education
of another child of hers. The education authorities refused to
provide assurances that such punishment would not be inflicted in the
future whilst it remained legal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal
punishment constituted violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention
and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 20 March 1984 and first
registered under file No. 11672/85 along with 11 other cases. The
application was then re-registered under a separate file No. 12672/87
on 29 January 1987.
After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on
12 March 1987. It decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its
Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the
respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit their
written observations on its admissibility and merits.
However, observations were not submitted and the Government
expressed the wish on 5 August 1987 to explore the possibility of
resolving the case.
The Commission decided on 12 December 1987 to suspend the
proceedings and to invite the Government to make specific proposals
for the resolution of the application.
On 3 February 1988 the Government made the following offer:
The Government recalled the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act
1986 and the abolition of corporal punishment in United Kingdom state
schools. Moreover, without prejudice to their position on the merits
of the application, they proposed an ex gratia payment of £3000 to
the applicants.
The applicants' representatives responded on 6 April 1988
with a proposal that £3000 be paid for the punishment and alleged
breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that £500 be paid for the
alleged failure to respect the first applicant's philosophical
objections to corporal punishment and the alleged breach of Article 2
of Protocl No. 1. A request was also made for the payment of
reasonable legal costs. Nevertheless the applicants' representatives
stressed that if, in spite of arguments they had advanced in support
of their claims, the Commission felt that the Government's offer was
reasonable, the applicants would be prepared to accept it.
By letter of 19 April 1988 the Government stated that their
offer consisted of a global ex gratia payment which in their view
was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.
The applicants' representatives responded on 22 April 1988
requesting the Commission to decide the matter, whilst emphasising
that the Government's offer had not been rejected by their clients.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex
gratia sum of £3000 to resolve this application. It also notes
that the applicants have not rejected this offer, should the Commission
consider it reasonable. The Commission finds the Government's offer
adequate in all the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the
applicants may be deemed to have accepted it. Furthermore, the
Commission considers, given the reform of the law on corporal
punishment in state schools, that there are no reasons of a general
character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate
the further retention of this case. The Commission, therefore,
concludes that the issues in the case are resolved and that, in the
circumstances, the applicants do not intend to pursue this application
(Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure).
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)