Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application 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

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

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 14 October 1991)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-19) 1-4

A. The applications (paras. 2-5) 1

B. The proceedings (paras. 6-14) 1-3

C. The present Report (paras. 15-19) 3-4

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 20-37) 5-8

A. The particular circumstances of the cases 5-7

(paras. 20-35)

B. The relevant domestic law and practice 7-8

(paras. 36-37)

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 38-52) 9-12

A. Complaints declared admissible 9

(para. 38)

B. Points at issue (para. 39) 9

C. As regards Article 5 para. 3 9-11

of the Convention (paras. 40-45)

Conclusion (para. 45) 11

D. As regards Article 5 para. 5 11

of the Convention

(paras. 46-50)

Conclusion (para. 50) 11

E. Recapitulation (paras. 51-52) 12

Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall 13

APPENDIX I History of the proceedings 14-16

APPENDIX II Decision on the admissibility 17-23

of Application No. 14550/89

5.3.91

APPENDIX III Decision on the admissibility 24-27

of Application No. 14604/89

5.3.91

APPENDIX IV Decision on the admissibility 28-32

of Application No. 14632/89

5.3.91

APPENDIX V Decision on the admissibility 33-41

of Application Nos. 14673/89,

14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89,

14710/89 and 14760/89 5.3.91

APPENDIX VI Decision on the admissibility 42-47

of Application Nos. 14759/89

and 14781/89 5.3.91

APPENDIX VII Decision on the admissibility 48-53

of Application No. 14765/89

5.3.91

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the cases, as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The applications

2. Sean and Kathleen McEldowney (husband and wife), Sean McGovern,

Michael Fox, Michael, Kevin and Mark Mullin (three brothers), Arthur

McNally, Francis McKeown, Peter Hughes, Patrick O'Hagan and Raymond

Larmour are all citizens of the United Kingdom. They were born in 1956,

1960, 1958, 1955, 1959, 1956, 1965, 1953, 1958, 1955, 1952 and 1958

respectively. They reside in Northern Ireland and were represented

before the Commission by Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co.,

Solicitors, Belfast.

3. Gerard Burns, the third applicant, is a citizen of Ireland, born

in 1953 and resident in Northern Ireland. He was represented before

the Commission by Messrs. John J. Rice & Co., Solicitors, Belfast.

4. The applications are directed against the United Kingdom. The

respondent Government were represented before the Commission by their

Agent, Mr. M.C. Wood, succeeded by Mrs. A.F. Glover, both of the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

5. The cases concern the applicants' arrest and detention without

charge, and without being brought before a judicial authority, for

periods exceeding 4 days under section 12 of the Prevention of

Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. They raise issues under

Article 5 of the Conventioon, particularly Article 5 paras. 3 and 5.

B. The proceedings

6. The first application was introduced by Sean and Kathleen

McEldowney on 13 January 1989 and registered on 18 January 1989. The

second application was introduced by Gerard Burns on 19 January 1989

and registered on 1 February 1989. The third application was

introduced by Sean McGovern on 27 January 1989 and registered on

7 February 1989. The fourth application was introduced by Michael Fox

on 31 January 1989 and registered on 20 February 1989. The fifth,

sixth and seventh applications were introduced by Michael, Kevin and

Mark Mullin on 13 February 1989 and registered on 28 February 1989.

The eighth application was introduced by Arthur McNally on

16 February 1989 and registered on 28 February 1989. The ninth and

tenth applications were introduced by Francis McKeown and Peter Hughes

on 22 February 1989 and registered on 8 March 1989. The eleventh

application was introduced by Patrick O'Hagan on 27 February 1989 and

registered on 10 March 1989. The twelfth application was introduced by

Raymond Larmour on 7 March 1989 and registered on 15 March 1989.

7. After a preliminary examination of the cases by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the applications on

6 May 1989. The Commission decided to join the applications and to

request the parties' written observations on admissibility and merits,

pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure (former

version).

8. The Government lodged their observations on 21 September 1989

after an extension of the time-limit fixed for their submission.

Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co. submitted observations in reply

on behalf of their clients on 18 October 1989. Messrs. John J. Rice

Co. did not submit observations on behalf of their client, Gerard

Burns, save to confirm by letter of 2 January 1990 that he maintained

his application.

9. On 6 February 1990 the Commission decided to adjourn its

examination of all the applications pending the judgment of the Court

in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, in view

of an original complaint made by these applicants under

Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention.

10. As Gerard Burns had not made a complaint in the second

application under Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention, his case was not

adjourned. The Commission informed the Government that it did not

consider it necessary to hold a hearing in that case. On 12 May 1990

the Commission again examined the state of proceedings in the second

application. It considered that Mr. Burns' complaint raised an issue

under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention and requested the parties to

submit specific written observations on this point, not dealt with in

the previous observations. The Government submitted their observations

on 22 June 1990, to which Mr. Burns' representatives replied on

11 July 1990.

11. The Court delivered its judgment in the case of Fox, Campbell and

Hartley on 30 August 1990 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 182). On

7 September 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties in the

other 11 cases to submit any comments they might have on the

significance of this judgment for the admissibility of their

applications. Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co. submitted their

comments on 5 October 1990. The Government lodged their comments on

23 November 1990 after an extension of the time limit fixed for their

submission. In their various observations these applicants withdrew

certain original complaints they had made under Article 5 paras. 1 (c)

and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention. As regards Article 5 para. 2,

these applicants also conceded that the Court's finding in the Fox,

Campbell and Hartley case was made in circumstances very similar to

their own. This was subsequently interpreted by the Commission as a

withdrawal of the complaint under Article 5 para. 2.

12. On 26 February 1991 the Commission decided to refer all the cases

to the Second Chamber, which on 5 March 1991 declared the first and

eleventh applications partially admissible and the other 10

applications admissible.

13. On 13 March 1991 the parties were sent the texts of the

Commission's decisions (grouped according to their factual

circumstances) and they were invited to submit further observations on

the merits of the case should they so wish. On 19 March 1991

Messrs. John J. Rice & Co. informed the Commission that they had no

additional observations to make on behalf of Mr. Burns. On

10 April 1991 the Government informed the Commission that they had no

additional observations to make on any of the applications. Similarly,

no additional observations were submitted by Messrs. J. Christopher

Napier & Co. on behalf of the other applicants.

14. After declaring the cases admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the

Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement

can be effected.

C. The present Report

15. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second

Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after

deliberations and votes, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. SPERDUTI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

16. The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on

14 October 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers

of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the

Convention.

17. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the

Convention, is

1) to establish the facts, and

2) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found

disclose a breach by the State concerned of its

obligations under the Convention.

18. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's

decisions on the admissibility of the applications as APPENDICES II -

VII.

19. The pleadings of the parties, together with the documents lodged

as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The particular circumstances of the cases

20. All the applicants were arrested and detained without charge for

periods exceeding 4 days under section 12 of the Prevention of

Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (the 1984 Act).

21. The first applicant, Sean McEldowney, was arrested at 21.55 hrs.

on 24 August 1988. At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism. He was also informed that there had been

an attempt to murder two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)

earlier that day and that a convicted terrorist had been found in the

roof-space of his home which had been searched in his absence. He was

detained for questioning about these matters until 18.15 hrs. on

31 August 1988, when he was released without being charged with any

offence. He was thus detained for 6 days, 20 hours and 20 minutes.

22. The second applicant, Kathleen McEldowney, was arrested at 14.50

hrs. on 24 August 1988 for the same reasons and the same purpose as her

husband, the first applicant. She was informed of this. She was

particularly suspected of being involved in the attempted murder of the

two RUC police officers because witnesses had described a woman

resembling her amongst a group of people who had stolen a van used in

the attempt. She was released at 13.00 hrs. on 31 August 1988 without

being charged with an offence. She was thus detained for 6 days,

22 hours and 10 minutes.

23. The third applicant, Gerard Burns, was arrested at 11.10 hrs. on

7 September 1988 as he was running away from a car similar to that used

by a gunman who a few minutes earlier had murdered someone in the

street. He is suspected of being a member of the Irish People's

Liberation Organisation, a terrorist organisation, and he has

convictions for terrorist offences. At the time of his arrest he was

told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he

was suspected of being involved in terrorism and he was also informed

that he was suspected of having been involved in the murder. He was

detained for questioning about these matters until 18.15 hrs. on

11 September 1988, when he was released without charge. He was thus

detained for 4 days, 7 hours and 5 minutes.

24. The fourth applicant, Sean McGovern, was arrested at 07.00 hrs.

on 27 October 1988 during a search of his house. He was informed that

he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was

suspected of being involved in terrorism and, in particular, was

suspected of being involved in the murder of a police constable the day

before, because a vehicle owned by the applicant, who is known to

associate with members of the Provisional IRA, a proscribed terrorist

organisation, was seen in the immediate vicinity at the time of the

murder. He was detained for questioning about these matters and

released without charge at 16.15 hrs. on 2 November 1988. He was thus

detained for 6 days, 9 hours and 15 minutes.

25. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh applicants

were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the same terrorist

incident in which unmarked civilian buses carrying soldiers were

ambushed by an explosive device in a road on 20 August 1988, resulting

in the death of eight soldiers and the injury of 27 others, some

seriously. On their arrest these applicants were all informed that

they were arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act on suspicion of

being involved in terrorism. They were all questioned about the bomb

attack during their detention and their suspected membership of the

Provisional IRA.

26. The fifth applicant, Michael Fox, was arrested at 04.03 hrs. on

24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on

28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 37

minutes.

27. The sixth applicant, Michael Mullin, was arrested at 04.05 hrs.

on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.30 hrs. on

28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 25

minutes.

28. The seventh applicant, Kevin Mullin, was arrested at 04.02 hrs.

on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.30 hrs. on

28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 28

minutes.

29. The eighth applicant, Mark Mullin, was arrested at 04.07 hrs. on

24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.35 hrs. on

28 August 1988. He was thus also detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 28

minutes.

30. The ninth applicant, Arthur McNally, who had convictions in 1976

for explosives and firearms offences, was arrested at 04.10 hrs. on 24

August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on

28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 30

minutes.

31. The eleventh applicant, Peter Hughes, was arrested at 04.14 hrs.

on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on

28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 26

minutes.

32. The tenth and thirteenth applicants were arrested on suspicion

of being involved in the same terrorist incident in which explosives

concealed in a van caused damage to a police station and neighbouring

houses, injuring a number of police officers and civilians, on

8 September 1988. On their arrest they were both informed that they

were arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act on suspicion of being

involved in terrorism. They were questioned about the attack on the

police station during their detention. 33. The tenth applicant,

Francis McKeown, a suspected member of the Provisional IRA, was

arrested at 13.35 hrs. on 9 September 1988 and released without charge

at 13.00 hrs. on 15 September 1988. He was thus detained 5 days, 23

hours and 25 minutes. He was arrested a month later under the same

legal provision at 08.30 hrs. on 13 October 1988 for questioning about

a bunker found under the floor of his garage which police suspected was

being used for terrorist purposes. He was released without charge at

18.40 hrs. on 17 October 1988. This second period of detention thus

lasted 4 days, 10 hours and 10 minutes.

34. The thirteenth applicant, Raymond Larmour, was arrested at 21.48

hrs. on 8 September 1988 and released without charge at 17.30 hrs. on

14 September 1988. He was thus detained for 5 days, 19 hours and 42

minutes.

35. The twelfth applicant, Patrick O'Hagan, a suspected member of the

Provisional IRA with convictions for firearms and explosives offences,

was arrested at 06.14 hrs. on 29 September 1988. At the time of his

arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the

1984 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism. During

his detention he was told that the police were inquiring into terrorist

activity and involvement in his vicinity and he was questioned about

his association with certain known Provisional IRA terrorists, a murder

in 1986, his suspected membership of the Provisional IRA and the

suspected hidden storage of munitions on his property (a search of the

property having revealed nothing). He was released without charge at

12.55 hrs. on 3 October 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 6 hours

and 41 minutes.

B. The relevant domestic law and practice

36. The applicants were detained pursuant to section 12 of the

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 which provides

as follows:

"(1) A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he

reasonably suspects to be -

(a) a person guilty of an offence under sections 1, 9, 10

or 11 of this Act;

(b) a person who is or has been concerned in the

commission, preparation or instigation of acts of

terrorism;

(c) a person subject to an exclusion order.

...

(3) The acts of terrorism to which this Part of the Act applies

are: -

(a) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of

Northern Ireland; and

(b) acts of terrorism of any other description except

acts connected solely with the affairs of the United

Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom other than

Northern Ireland.

(4) A person arrested under this section shall not be

detained in right of the arrest for more than forty-eight hours

after his arrest, but the Secretary of State may, in any

particular case, extend the period of forty-eight hours by a

further period or periods specified by him.

(5) Any such further period or periods shall not exceed

five days in all.

(6) The following provisions (requirement to bring an

accused person before the court after his arrest) shall not

apply to a person detained in right of the arrest -

...

(d) Article 131 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern

Ireland) Order 1981; ..."

37. The history of this legislation is set out at paragraphs 25 to

28 in the case of Brogan and Others (Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and

Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145B). As from

22 March 1989, the 1984 Act was replaced by the corresponding

provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)

Act 1989.

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

38. The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaint

that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of the Prevention of

Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were in breach of Article 5

para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. The Commission also declared

admissible the complaint of all the applicants, except Gerard Burns,

the third applicant, who did not raise the point, that they had no

enforceable right to compensation pursuant to Article 5 para. 5

(Art. 5-5) of the Convention.

B. Points at issue

39. The following are the points at issue in the present cases:

- whether the applicants were brought promptly before a judge

or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power,

as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention;

- whether twelve of the applicants had an enforceable right

to compensation, as required by Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of

the Convention.

C. As regards Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention

40. Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention provides as

follows:

"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of

paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge

or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall

be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending

trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."

41. The applicants have complained that they were not brought

"promptly" before a judge after their arrest, contrary to

Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. They were held for

periods ranging from 4 days, 6 hours and 41 minutes (Patrick O'Hagan,

the twelfth applicant) to 6 days, 22 hours and 10 minutes

(Kathleen McEldowney, the second applicant) before being released. At

no time during their detention were they brought before a judge. They

rely on the judgment of the Court in the case of Brogan and Others in

which it was held that periods of detention varying from 4 days, 6

hours to 6 days, 16 hours and 30 minutes under section 12 of the

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, without the

individuals concerned being brought before a judicial authority, was

in violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention

(Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988,

Series A no. 145B, paras. 55-62).

42. The Government have contended that the precise basis of the

applicants' complaint is unclear and that it is accordingly unfounded.

43. The Commission notes that at paragraphs 61 and 62 of the

aforementioned Brogan and Others judgment the Court held as follows:

"61. The investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presents the

authorities with special problems. ... The Court accepts that,

subject to the existence of adequate safeguards, the context of

terrorism in Northern Ireland has the effect of prolonging the period

during which the authorities may, without violating Article 5 para. 3,

(Art. 5-3) keep a person suspected of serious terrorist offences in

custody before bringing him before a judge or other judicial officer.

The difficulties, alluded to by the Govenment, of judicial

control over decisions to arrest and detain suspected terrorists may

affect the manner of implementation of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3), for

example in calling for appropriate procedural precautions in view of

the nature of the suspected offences. However, they cannot justify,

under Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3), dispensing altogether with 'prompt'

judicial control.

62. ... the scope for flexibility in interpreting and applying the

notion of 'promptness' is very limited. In the Court's view, even the

shortest of the four periods of detention, namely the four days and six

hours spent in police custody by (one of the applicants) falls outside

the strict constraints as to time permitted by the first part of

Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3). To attach such importance to the special

features of this case as to justify so lengthy a period of detention

without appearance before a judge or other judicial officer would be

an unacceptably wide interpretation of the plain meaning of the word

'promptly'. An interpretation to this effect would import into

Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3) a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee

to the detriment of the individual and would entail consequences

impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision.

The Court thus has to conclude that none of the applicants was either

brought 'promptly' before a judicial authority or released 'promptly'

following his arrest. The undoubted fact that the arrest and detention

of the applicants were inspired by the legitimate aim of protecting the

community as a whole from terrorism is not on its own sufficient to

ensure compliance with the specific requirements of Article 5 § 3

(Art. 5-3).

There has thus been a breach of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3) in

respect of all four applicants."

44. In view of the fact that the applicants in the present cases were

detained for longer periods than that of four days and six hours

mentioned in the above extract from the Brogan and Others judgment, the

Commission is of the opinion that the applicants were not brought

"promptly" before a judge, as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3)

of the Convention.

Conclusion

45. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

D. As regards Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention

46. Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention provides as

follows:

"Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or

detention in contravention of the provisions of

this Article shall have an enforceable right

to compensation."

47. Twelve of the applicants complained that they have no enforceable

right to compensation in domestic law for the breach of Article 5

para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention which they suffered. No such

complaint was made by Gerard Burns (No. 14604/89). The twelve

applicants again relied on the judgment of the Court in the case of

Brogan and Others in which a breach of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) was

found as those applicants had not had a right to compensation in

respect of the violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the

Convention (ibid. paras. 66-67).

48. The Government contended that as the facts of the cases of the

twelve applicants in question disclosed no breach of Article 5 para. 3

(Art. 5-3) of the Convention, no issue could arise under

Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.

49. The twelve applicants were arrested and detained lawfully under

domestic law but, as the Commission has concluded above, in breach of

Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. This violation could

not give rise, either before or after such a finding by the Convention

organs, to an enforceable claim for compensation by the applicants

before the courts in the United Kingdom. The twelve applicants do not,

therefore, have any enforceable right to compensation under

Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.

Conclusion

50. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the

cases of twelve applicants.

E. Recapitulation

51. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention

(para. 45).

52. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been

a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the

cases of twelve applicants (para. 50).

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall

I agree that if the judgment of the Court in the Brogan and

Others case is followed the applicants in the present cases were not

"brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to

exercise judicial power ..." and that in consequence there would be a

violation of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. I remain however of

the opinion, which I expressed in that case, that in the circumstances

at present obtaining in Northern Ireland the needs of the community

justify a more flexible interpretation of the expression "promptly" in

Article 5 para. 3 in cases of suspected terrorism than would be

permissible in other cases.

I do not need to elaborate on this theme. I need only refer to

the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Bindschleder-Robert, Gölcüklü, Matscher and Valticos and to the

dissenting opinions of Judge Sir Vincent Evans and Judge Martens in the

Brogan and Others case.

I nonetheless wish to stress the extreme importance of the

safeguards given by Article 5 para. 3. The experience of the

Commission has shown that the protection of individuals who are

arrested on suspicion of having committed offences requires that the

provision shall in normal circumstances be restrictively interpreted.

The situation in Northern Ireland described in the opinions I have

referred to above, and in the Commission's report in that case, is

however such that, exceptionally, for the protection of the basic human

rights of members of the Northern Irish community, a less restrictive

interpretation of Article 5 para. 3 is required.

I am therefore of the opinion that there has been no violation

of Article 5 para. 3 in these cases. It follows that I do not consider

that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 5.

Appendix I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

________________________________________________________________

Introduction

13.01.89 Application No. 14550/89

19.01.89 Application No. 14604/89

27.01.89 Application No. 14633/89

31.01.89 Application No. 14673/89

13.02.89 Application Nos. 14706/89,

14708/89 and 14709/89

16.02.89 Application No. 14710/89

22.02.89 Application Nos. 14759/89

and 14760/89

27.02.89 Application No. 14765/89

07.03.89 Application No. 14781/89

Registration

18.01.89 Application No. 14550/89

01.02.89 Application No. 14604/89

07.02.89 Application No. 14633/89

20.02.89 Application No. 14673/89

28.02.89 Application Nos. 14706/89,

14708/89, 14709/89 and 14710/89

08.03.89 Application Nos. 14759/89

and 14760/89

10.03.89 Application No. 14765/89

15.03.89 Application No. 14781/89

Examination of admissibility

06.05.89 Commission's decision to join the

applications and to invite the

parties to submit their written

observations on admissibility and

merits

21.09.89 Government's observations

18.10.89 Observations of Messrs. J. Christopher

Napier & Co. on behalf of 12 applicants

02.01.90 Information from Messrs. John J. Rice

& Co. on behalf of the third applicant

(Application No. 14604/89)

06.01.90 Adjournment of 11 applications

12.05.90 Commission's decision to invite the

parties to submit observations on the

admissibility and merits of an aspect

of the second Application No. 14604/89

22.06.90 Government's observations in

Application No. 14604/89

11.07.90 Observations from Messrs. John J. Rice

& Co. in Application No. 14604/89

07.09.90 Commission's decision to invite the

parties' comments in 11 applications

on the relevance of the Fox, Campbell

and Hartley judgment to their cases

05.10.90 Comments from Messrs. J. Christopher

Napier & Co. in the 11 applications

23.11.90 Government's comments in the 11

applications

26.02.91 Commission's decision to refer cases

to the Second Chamber

05.03.91 Decision of the Commission (Second

Chamber) to declare the first and

eleventh applications partially

admissible (Nos. 14550/89 and

14765/89) and to declare the other

10 applications admissible

Examination of the merits

13.03.91 Parties invited to submit such final

observations on the merits as they

wished

19.03.91 Information from Messrs. John J. Rice

& Co. in the second Application

No. 14604/89

10.04.91 Information from the Government

10.09.91 Commission's consideration of

state of proceedings

14.10.91 Commission's deliberations on the

merits and final votes

Adoption of the present Report

Menu

McELDOWNEY, BURNS, McGOVERN, FOX, MULLIN, MULLIN, MULLIN, McNALLY, McKEOWN, HUGHES, O'HAGAN, AND LARMOUR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

McELDOWNEY, BURNS, McGOVERN, FOX, MULLIN, MULLIN, MULLIN, McNALLY, McKEOWN, HUGHES, O'HAGAN, AND LARMOUR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI