Search
document

Document text Analytics

J. and L. B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12720/87 • ECHR ID: 001-293

Document date: May 11, 1988

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

J. and L. B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12720/87 • ECHR ID: 001-293

Document date: May 11, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 12720/87

by J. and L. B.

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 15 May 1985 by

J. and L. B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 February

1987 under file No. 12720/87;

Having regard to:

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

of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 8 May 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

daughter, born in 1955 and 1978 respectively. They live in Surrey.

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

and Partners, Solicitors, London.

On the 20 November 1984, the second applicant, then aged six,

was smacked on her bottom by her state schoolteacher in front of the

class. During this punishment she urinated in full view of the teacher

and her classmates. The applicants state that the second applicant

suffered emotional trauma as a result and for a considerable time

showed fear and panic about attending school in general (even after a

change of school) and about the teacher who had smacked her.

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 15 May 1985 and registered

on 2 February 1987.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

8 May 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 £500 be paid to the first applicant for the

alleged breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and that £3000 be paid

to the second applicant for the punishment and alleged breach of

Article 3 of the Convention. 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