Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012) 144 [1]

Kay and others against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No 37341/06, judgment of 21 September 2010, final on 21 December 2010)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-D D (2011)1162E );

Recalling that the respondent State ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2011)1162E );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

DECLARES that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Plan/Action Report and Updates Template

Name of Case Kay v UK (application no. 37341/06;

judgment final on 21 December 2010)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 8th August 2011

Case Summary

1. Case description:

- The applicants were occupiers of housing units owned by Lambeth borough council, which had originally sublet the accommodation to a charitable housing trust. Once Lambeth terminated the lease in November 1999, the occupiers became trespassers against the council. Lambeth then brought possession proceedings to evict them. The applicants were not permitted to raise their human rights as a defence to possession proceedings, and they complained that this breached their right to respect for private and home life under Article 8 (the right to a family life). They were unsuccessful before the domestic courts but the Strasbourg Court found a violation of Article 8, insofar as the applicants had been prevented from raising it as a defence .

Individual Measures

2. Just satisfaction:

- The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

- The Government considers no further individual measures are required because the violation of Article 8 was held to be in procedural aspects only.

- We understand from Lambeth that the financing for the redevelopment of the block in which he was living has fallen through, and Mr Kay is still living there. There is therefore no need for further individual measures. Lambeth also said that Mr Kay and his family may be entitled to accommodation as a homeless family if the development goes ahead in the future. We consider that if any steps were taken to evict him, he would now be able to raise Article 8 rights as a defence following the decision in Pinnock .

General Measures

4. Publication:

- The judgment has been published in:

- Case Reports

Times Law Reports (2010) Times, 18 October

All England Law Reports [2010] All ER (D) 107 (Sep)

New Law Journal [2010] NLJR 1346

- Articles

New Law Journal

160 NLJ 1638

26 November 2010

Public: Beating a path

- New Law Journal

160 NLJ 1365

8 October 2010

Human rights / Housing: An ongoing saga

- Law Society Gazette

L.S.G. 2010, 107(41), 20-21.

Local government (October)

Nicholas Dobson

- Practical Law Companies

P.L.C. 2010, 21(10), 48-49.

Possession proceedings: Article 8.

- Property Law Journal

P.L.J. 2010, 259, 6-10.

Defences to possession proceedings.

Clare Collier

- Legal Action (2010) November Pages 29-33

Recent developments in public law: Part 1 (November)

5. Dissemination:

- The Government considers it is unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the recent Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock clarifies the existing domestic law position; please see below. As the law has already changed, we consider that highlighting the previous legal position would be confusing.

- The judgment in Pinnock has been covered extensively in the specialist housing press as well as the legal press. It is considered that any additional measures to draw attention to that judgment are unnecessary.

6. Other general measures:

- The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because the Supreme Court decision in Manchester City Council v Pinnock , available at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs / UKSC_2009_0180_Judgment.pdf

clarified the law in relation to possession proceedings. The Supreme Court in Pinnock invited written submissions on the effect of Kay v UK as the judgment was handed down after the oral hearing in Pinnock in July 2010. The decision in Pinnock has now modified the law as set out in the House of Lords decision in Kay v Lambeth .

- Consistently with the judgment in Kay v UK , it holds that, in principle, any public sector occupier at risk of losing their home must have the opportunity to have the proportionality of that step considered by the county court. This consideration can include factors such as the occupier ’ s personal circumstances. This is a significant clarification of the law since Kay was before the House of Lords. As the Supreme Court ’ s decision sets a binding precedent for lower courts, the Department does not consider that any further steps are necessary to implement the judgment.

7. - The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2012 at the 11 50 th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .