Search
document

Document text Analytics

S. and M.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11006/84 • ECHR ID: 001-197

Document date: May 11, 1988

Inbound citations: 5
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

S. and M.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11006/84 • ECHR ID: 001-197

Document date: May 11, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 11006/84

by S. and M. S.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 May 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 August 1983

by S. and M. S. against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 June

1984 under file N° 11006/84;

Having regard to:

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

of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 4 December 1984 to bring

the application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibilty and merits;

- ii -

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

26 April 1985 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicants on 6 September 1985;

- the Commission's decision of 8 May 1987 to invite the

respondent Government to submit further observations on

the admissibility and merits of the case;

- the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February

1988;

- the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicants'

representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, United Kingdom citizens, are mother and son

and live in Kent. The second applicant was born in October 1968.

They are represented before the Commission by Messrs. Binks, Stern and

Partners, Solicitors, London.

On 29 April 1983, the second applicant, then aged 14, was

informed that he was to be caned by his state school headmaster for

allegedly fighting with other boys in the classroom. The second

applicant, with the support of the first applicant and his father,

refused to submit to the punishment, whereupon he was suspended from

the school. On 19 May 1983, the second applicant was caned three

times on the bottom. The punishment was accepted because a continued

refusal would allegedly have led to the second applicant's prolonged

suspension from the school and the disruption of his education.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal

punishment constituted violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the

Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 26 August 1983 and

registered on 21 June 1984 after further submissions had been

received.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

4 December 1984. It decided to bring the application to the notice of

the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 (2) (b) of its Rules of

Procedure and to invite them to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government's observations were received on 26 April 1985,

to which the applicants replied on 6 September 1985.

On 8 May 1987, the Commission decided to invite the respondent

Government to submit further observations on the admissibility and

merits of the application pursuant to Rule 43 para. 3 (a) of the Rules

of Procedure.

However, further observations were not submitted and the

Government expressed the wish on 5 August 1987 to explore the

possibility of resolving the case.

The Commission decided on 12 December 1987 to suspend the

proceedings and to invite the Government to make specific proposals

for the resolution of the application.

On 3 February 1988 the Government made the following offer:

The Government recalled the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act

1986 and the abolition of corporal punishment in United Kingdom state

schools. Moreover, without prejudice to their position on the merits

of the application, they proposed an ex gratia payment of £3000 to

the applicants.

The applicants' representatives responded on 6 April 1988

with a proposal that £3000 be paid for the punishment and alleged

breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that £250 be paid for the

three week suspension from school and the alleged breach of Article 2

of Protocol No. 1. A request was also made for the payment of

reasonable legal costs. Nevertheless the applicants' representatives

stressed that if, in spite of arguments they had advanced in support

of their claims, the Commission felt that the Government's offer was

reasonable, the applicants would be prepared to accept it.

By letter of 19 April 1988 the Government stated that their

offer consisted of a global ex gratia payment which in their view

was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

The applicants' representatives responded on 22 April 1988

requesting the Commission to decide the matter, whilst emphasising

that the Government's offer had not been rejected by their clients.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex

gratia sum of £3000 to resolve this application. It also notes

that the applicants have not rejected this offer, should the Commission

consider it reasonable. The Commission finds the Government's offer

adequate in all the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the

applicants may be deemed to have accepted it. Furthermore, the

Commission considers, given the reform of the law on corporal

punishment in state schools, that there are no reasons of a general

character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate

the further retention of this case. The Commission, therefore,

concludes that the issues in the case are resolved and that, in the

circumstances, the applicants do not intend to pursue this application

(Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure).

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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant