Lexploria

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to Application No. 10061/82 introduced

against the United Kingdom by Mr. Patrick Joseph Conroy on

30 March 1981 under Article 25 of the European Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25).

The application was registered on 17 August 1982.

2. The European Commission of Human Rights declared the

application admissible on 5 July 1985. The applicant, who had

represented himself in the proceedings before the Commission up to the

time of the admissibility decision, was subsequently represented by

Memery Crystal & Company, solicitors, London.

The Commission then proceeded to carry out its tasks under

Article 28 of the Convention (art. 28), which provides that:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

(a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the parties

an examination of the petition and, if need be, an

investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States

concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an

exchange of views with the Commission;

(b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties

concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of

the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as

defined in this Convention."

4. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and, at its session on 15 May 1986, adopted

this Report, which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention

(art. 30), is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the

solution reached. The following members of the Commission were

present when the Report was adopted:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

PART ONE

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1922 and lives in

Blackley, Manchester, United Kingdom. In 1979 he was dismissed from

his post as a printer's assistant by his employers, Cunliffe Engravers

at Walkden, a firm which since 1970 had operated a closed shop

agreement with SOGAT (Society of Graphical and Allied Trades). His

dismissal was the consequence of the applicant's expulsion from his

trade union.

6. He had been an active member of SOGAT for 35 years and was, in

1976, chairman of the SOGAT chapel in Cunliffe's. He subsequently

became involved in a dispute with SOGAT and distributed pamphlets

alleging financial irregularities and breaches of union rules by

branch officers of the union.

7. He was then summoned to appear before the union's National

Executive Council. The hearing of the Council took place in the

applicant's absence on 14 March 1979. He was charged and found guilty

of breaching union rules by distributing pamphlets and thus acting to

the detriment of the union. He was then expelled from the union. An

appeal to the Independent Review Committee of the TUC against this

decision was unsuccessful.

8. As a consequence of his expulsion from the union he was

dismissed by his employers on 20 April 1979.

9. The applicant then brought an action for unfair dismissal

before an Industrial Tribunal in Manchester. However, the Tribunal

found that the applicant was in fundamental breach of his contract of

employment which required union membership and his dismissal had to be

regarded as fair under the applicable legal provisions. In July 1980

he was refused legal aid by the Law Society for the purpose of

appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

10. The applicant was subsequently granted legal aid to bring

proceedings against SOGAT before the High Court. In his action,

initiated on 22 May 1981, the applicant claimed that the procedure

leading to his expulsion was in breach of the rules of natural

justice. He sought his reinstatement as a member of the union,

damages, interest and costs.

11. Legal aid was subsequently withdrawn by the Law Society on 31

January 1984 after receipt of counsel's opinion that the applicant's

action was unlikely to succeed.

12. The applicant decided to continue with the action and to

represent himself in the proceedings. The action was dismissed by the

Manchester High Court following a hearing from 21 - 25 January 1985.

An appeal against this decision to the Court of Appeal was dismissed

sometime in November 1985.

13. In his application to the Commission the applicant complained

that as a consequence of his dismissal from SOGAT he had been deprived

of his job and livelihood.

14. On 7 December 1983 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government for observations on its

admissibility and merits insofar as it raised issues under inter alia

Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (art. 10, art. 11). The

Commission subsequently declared the application admissible in a

decision dated 5 July 1985.

15. Finally, a friendly settlement of the case was reached, as

described in Part Two.

PART TWO

SOLUTION REACHED

16. Following its decision on the admissibility of the

application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement, in accordance

with Article 28 para. b of the Convention (art. 28-b), and invited the

parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.

17. In a letter dated 3 March 1986, the respondent Government

offered compensation consisting of £37,600 for loss of earnings and

£550 for non-pecuniary losses (anxiety and stress). A full narrative

of legal costs was requested from the applicant's legal

representative.

18. The applicant's legal representative accepted the offer in

respect of loss of earnings and non-pecuniary loss in a letter dated

11 April 1986 and provided the information requested as regards legal

costs.

19. In a letter dated 9 May 1986 the Agent of the United Kingdom

Government, Mr. Hendry, stated as follows:

"I have the honour to refer to your letter of 21 April 1986 and to

confirm that the Government are prepared to pay the sum of £38,150

which was offered in my letter of 3 March 1986 in full and final

settlement of the claims made by the applicant in this case. As

regards legal costs, the sum of £1,518 (including VAT) has been agreed

with the applicant's solicitor as the amount to be paid for all the

legal costs incurred by the applicant.

If these sums are acceptable to the applicant the Government are ready

to make payment at the earliest opportunity."

20. Finally, the applicant's legal representative indicated in a

telex dated 12 May 1986 that agreement had now been concluded on all

outstanding matters.

21. At its session on 15 May 1986, the Commission noted that the

parties had come to an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.

The Commission found, having regard to Article 28 para. b of the

Convention (art. 28-b), that a friendly settlement of the matter had

been secured on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in

the Convention.

For the above reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

CONROY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

CONROY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI