Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)177 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Peck against the United Kingdom

(Application No.44647/98 judgment of 28 January 2003, final on 28 April 2003)

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern: the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life as a result of the disclosure of pictures of him in the media by a local council without sufficient safeguards (violation of Article 8 of the Convention) and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with the United Kingdom ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the a p plicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

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

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to clos e the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)177

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Peck against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

The case concerns a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life as, in 1995, a local council disclosed pictures of him to the media without sufficient safeguards, for example, without his consent or masking his identity. These pictures showed the applicant in a town centre just before a suicide attempt, holding a knife. They were filmed by a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera installed in a public street for the prevention of disorder and crime (violation of Article 8).

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in relation to the violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life (violation of Article 13).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

--

11 800 EUR

18 075 EUR

29 875 EUR

Paid on 27/07/2003

b) Individual measures

The applicant was awarded by the Court non-pecuniary damages in excess of his claim. Further, the applicant ’ s complaints before the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) and the Independent Television Commission (ITC) were upheld and the decisions were published (§25-26 of the judgment). The applicant also made a number of media appearances in order to speak out against the publication of his photographs (§23). In light of this, and the fact that the applicant has made no other specific claim to the Committee of Ministers, no further individual measures were considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The Human Rights Act 1998 contains general provisions regarding substantive and procedural rights according to which primary and subordinate legislation shall be read and given effect in accordance with the Convention.

Specific provisions are contained in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Information Commissioner ’ s CCTV Code of Practice 2008. The DPA provides the statutory basis for systemic legal control of CCTV surveillance over public areas, setting legally enforceable standards for the collection and processing of images relating to individuals. It empowers the Information Commissioner to issue a Code of Practice setting out the measures that represent good practice and compliance with the DPA. The Information Commissioner has the power to enforce compliance with the DPA including imposing monetary penalties for serious breaches

The current CCTV Code of Practice (published in 2008) superseded the previous version (first published in 2000) and was revised to take account of changes in law, technology and use of CCTV. It now addresses the requirements of the HRA and in particular Article 8 of the European Convention and the judgment of the European Court in the Peck case. In addition to previous provisions such as those limiting retention and restricting disclosure of images to third parties it has been strengthened in significant areas. It now requires a systematic justification for the use of CCTV, improved quality of images and clear restrictions on the monitoring and recording of conversations in public spaces.

As regards the violation of Article 13, the Human Rights Act 1998 provides an effective remedy (see Bubbins against the United Kingdom , Resolution CM/ ResDH (2007)101) .

The judgment of the European Court was published in European Human Rights Reports at (2006)26 EHRR 41. Advice to CCTV managers was added to the Home Office ’ s “Crime Reduction” website ( http://tna. e uroparchive.org/20100413151441/http:/www.crimereduc t ion.homeoffice.gov.uk/regions/regions00.htm ) and was also provided to the national CCTV user group for dissemination to its members.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies