Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11756/85 • ECHR ID: 001-991

Document date: March 13, 1989

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11756/85 • ECHR ID: 001-991

Document date: March 13, 1989

Cited paragraphs only



Application No. 11756/85

by G.S.

against the United Kingdom

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 March 1989, the following members being present:

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                     S. TRECHSEL

                     F. ERMACORA

                     G. SPERDUTI

                     E. BUSUTTIL

                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                     A. WEITZEL

                     J.C. SOYER

                     H.G. SCHERMERS

                     H. DANELIUS

                     G. BATLINER

                     J. CAMPINOS

                     H. VANDENBERGHE

                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

                Sir  Basil HALL

                MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                     C.L. ROZAKIS

                Mrs.  J. LIDDY

                Mr.  L. LOUCAIDES

                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 26 October

1982 by Greogry SWAN against the United Kingdom and registered on

19 September 1985 under file No. 11756/85;

- ii -

11756/85

        Having regard to:

     -  reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of

        the Commission;

     -  the Commission's decision of 17 July 1986 to bring the

        application to the notice of the respondent Government

        and invite them to submit written observations on its

        admissibility and merits ;

     -  the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

        5 August 1987 and 5 February 1988, upon which the applicant

        had no comment ;

     -  the Commission's partial decision on admissibility of

        10 October 1988 and its decision to request further

        observations from the Government on admissibility and

        merits ;

     -  the proposals submitted by the Government on 17 January 1989 ;

     -  the response of the applicant on 17 February 1989 ;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in

1969 and resident in W., England.  He is represented before the

Commission by his mother and Messrs.  Wilford McBain, solicitors,

London.

        He complained to the Commission of severe corporal punishment

he had received in an English State school.  The teacher concerned was

unsuccessfully prosecuted, during which time he was suspended from his

job but, subsequently, on his acquittal, re-instated with a formal

disciplinary warning.  By that time the applicant had been removed

from the school.  Civil proceedings for assault were settled out of

court with a £300 payment.  The applicant originally claimed to have

been a victim of a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was originally introduced by the applicant,

together with his mother as applicant, on 26 October 1982 when his

representatives wrote to the Secretary to the Commission submitting

details of the complaints.  An application form was sent to them on

16 November 1982, with the request that it should be returned, duly

completed.  The applicant's solicitors' next letter was dated

5 September 1985, when the application form was returned.  It was

received on 19 September 1985 and registered on that date.

        After a preliminary examination of the case by a Rapporteur,

the Commission examined the case on 17 July 1986 but then adjourned

it.  It renewed its examination of the case on 12 March 1987 and

decided to give notice of the application, pursuant to Rule 42(2)(b)

of its Rules of Procedure, to the respondent Government.

        On 5 August 1987, after an extension of the time-limit, the

Government expressed their wish to resolve the application by virtue

of the abolition of corporal punishment in State schools by the

Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which came into force on 15 August 1987,

in view of the fact that the applicant's mother had stated in the

application to the Commission that its object was, inter alia, to

obtain a reform of the domestic law.  The applicant submitted no

response to the Government's proposal.

        On 12 December 1987 the Commission decided to invite the

respondent Government to make specific proposals for the resolution of

the case.  However on 5 February 1988 the Government submitted written

observations on the admissibility of the application.  On 29 April

1988 the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that the

applicant relied on the submissions in the original application and

had no further observations to make.

        On 10 October 1988 the Commission declared the mother's part

of the application inadmissible and requested the Government to submit

further observations, pursuant to Rule 42(3)(a) of its Rules of

Procedure, concerning the son's part of the application.

        On 17 January 1989 the Government submitted further proposals

for the resolution of the application:  Drawing attention to the

reform of the English law regarding State school corporal punishment

and the £300 already obtained by the applicant through civil

proceedings, they offered an ex gratia payment of £2,700.  On

17 February 1989 the applicant's representatives informed the

Commission that their client accepted the offer and wished to withdraw

the case.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

        The Commission notes the Government's offer to resolve the

application by the ex gratia payment of £2,700 and the applicant's

acceptance of that proposal and his wish to withdraw the case.  The

Commission finds, in view of the reform of the English law on State

school corporal punishment, that the application presents no reasons

of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention

which require its retention.  In these circumstances, the Commission

accedes to the applicant's request to withdraw  his case.

        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)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255