Search
document

Document text Analytics

GETTENS and LAMBERT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12672/87 • ECHR ID: 001-279

Document date: May 11, 1988

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

GETTENS and LAMBERT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12672/87 • ECHR ID: 001-279

Document date: May 11, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 12672/87

by Jennifer GETTENS and Timothy LAMBERT

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 20 March 1984

by Jennifer GETTENS and Timothy LAMBERT against the United Kingdom and

registered on 29 January 1987 under file No. 12672/87;

Having regard to:

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

of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 12 March 1987 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 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 they live in Berkshire. The second applicant was born in December

1971. The applicants are represented before the Commission by Messrs.

Binks, Stern and Partners, Solicitors, London.

On 29 September 1983, the second applicant was caned by the

headmaster of his state school after an incident in which he was

allegedly bullied by other boys into removing chains from wash basins

and toilets. The first applicant had earlier made known to the school

her opposition to corporal punishment in connection with the education

of another child of hers. The education authorities refused to

provide assurances that such punishment would not be inflicted in the

future whilst it remained legal.

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 20 March 1984 and first

registered under file No. 11672/85 along with 11 other cases. The

application was then re-registered under a separate file No. 12672/87

on 29 January 1987.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

12 March 1987. It decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the

respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit their

written observations on its admissibility and merits.

However, 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 £500 be paid for the

alleged failure to respect the first applicant's philosophical

objections to corporal punishment and the alleged breach of Article 2

of Protocl 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