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 applications
lodged between 13 January and 7 March 1989 by Sean and
Kathleen McEldowney, Gerard Burns, Sean McGovern, Michael Fox,
Michael Mullin, Kevin Mullin, Mark Mullin, Arthur McNally,
Francis McKeown, Peter Hughes, Patrick O'Hagan and
Raymond Larmour against the United Kingdom (Applications
Nos. 14550/89, 14604/89, 14632/89, 14673/89, 14706/89, 14708/89,
14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89 and 14781/89);
Whereas on 6 December 1991 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 their applications the applicants complained,
inter alia, that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of
the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were
in breach of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention
and that they, with the exception of Mr Burns who did not raise
the point, had no enforceable right to compensation pursuant to
Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible
on 5 March 1991 and in its report adopted on 14 October 1991
expressed by nine votes to one the opinion that there had been
in all cases a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3),
of the Convention and, in all cases except that of Mr Burns, also
a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the
Convention;
Whereas, at the 473rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
held on 2 April 1992, 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 all these
cases a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the
Convention and in all cases except that of Mr Burns, a violation
of Article 5, paragraph 5 (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 applicants;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers was informed by the
President of the Commission on 21 January 1994 that the
Commission (Second Chamber) had found that there was no need for
it to complete its proposals as the Government of the United
Kingdom and the applicants had agreed on the sums to be awarded
for costs and expenses and as no other claims had been put
forward;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government
of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken
following its decision of 2 April 1992, having regard to the
United Kingdom's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4
(art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the
Committee of Ministers that it considered that it had complied
with the obligations deriving from the Committee of Minister's
decision of 2 April 1992 by having entered the derogation
pursuant to Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention, notified on
23 December 1988 and 23 March 1989 to the Secretary General of
the Council of Europe (see Resolution DH (90) 23 concerning the
judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan and
others case);
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that the
Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicants the sums
agreed in respect of 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