The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32
(art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the
Convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European
Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31
(art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged
on 4 July 1990 by Mr Eric Oldham against the United Kingdom
(Application No. 17143/90);
Whereas on 27 January 1993 the Commission transmitted the
said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period
of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case
having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in
pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the
Commission on 1 July 1992 (final decision as to the
admissibility), the applicant complained that he was unable to
have the continued lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a
court, while he was serving a discretionary life sentence, and
that he had no enforceable right to compensation in this respect;
Whereas in its report adopted on 2 December 1992, the
Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had
been a violation of Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5 (art. 5-4,
art. 5-5), of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 494th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies,
held on 18 May 1993, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with
the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in
accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case
a violation of Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5 (art. 5-4,
art. 5-5), of the Convention;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals
made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards
just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals
supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated
10 September 1993;
Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom formulated
supplementary observations with regard to the Commission's
proposals for just satisfaction, which observations were
transmitted to the Commission on 22 November 1993 for any comment
it might wish to make;
Whereas on 9 December 1993, the President of the Commission
informed the President of the Ministers' Deputies that the
Commission had taken note of the observations of the Government
of the United Kingdom but had no comment to make with regard to
the question raised therein;
Whereas, at the 507th meeting of the Deputies, held on
3 February 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in
accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the
Convention, that the Government of the United Kingdom was to pay
the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months,
500 British pounds in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
100 British pounds in respect of the costs, that is a total sum
of 600 British pounds;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government
of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken
following its decisions of 18 May 1993 and 3 February 1994,
having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under
Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide
by them;
Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the
Committee of Ministers that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which
entered into force on 1 October 1992 (see inter alia
Resolution DH (92) 24), would also apply to situations comparable
to the one at issue in the present case, and that they did not,
for the reasons cited in the above-mentioned resolution, consider
themselves under an obligation to legislate in the field covered
by Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on
24 February 1994 the Government of the United Kingdom paid the
applicant the total sum of 600 British pounds as just
satisfaction,
Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the
Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its
functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this
case;
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the
Commission in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy