Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)182 [1]

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights:

3 cases against the United Kingdom

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”) [2] ,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Case and Application

Judgment of

Final on

Crompton (42509/05)

27/10/2009

10/05/2010

Bullen and Soneji (33383/06)

08/01/2009

08/04/2009

S.H. (19956/06)

15/06/2010

15/09/2010

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;

Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute each of the judgments listed in the table above;

Having, in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report for each case provided by the government (see appendices);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

DECLARES, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix 1 to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)182

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Crompton v United Kingdom

Application no. 42509/05

Action Report submitted by the United Kingdom on 23 June 2010

This case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings before the Army Board and the High Court from December 1994 to May 2005 (8 years and 5 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual Measures

1. Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly the Court considered there was no call to make an award.

2. Other individual measures: The Government considers that no further individual measures are required given the Court ’ s findings at paragraphs 74 to 80 of the judgment. The Government admitted, and the Court concluded, that the proceedings were not concluded within the “reasonable time” prescribed by article 6(1). This did not affect the outcome of the initial complaint, namely that the applicant was made redundant from the Territorial Army and was entitled to compensation. Following the applications for judicial review the compensation was reassessed and the applicant was awarded £153,864.47.

General Measures

3. Publication : A full report of the judgment has been published in the All England Reporter [2009] All ER (D) 270 (Oct.). A summary of the judgment has been published in the LexisWeb case abstracts ( http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2009/October/Crompton-v-United-Kingdom-App-N o -42509-05 ) and Aspals UK Courts Martial Case Updater ( http://www.aspal s .com/cases-cd.html ). Aspals UK is a non-subscription based website which publishes judgments and other reports of interest to military lawyers.

4. Dissemination : Details of the judgment have been disseminated throughout the Min istry of Defence to those deciding on, advising on or with an interest in the system of service complaints, including the heads of the Single service complaints secretariats, the Service Complaints Commissioner and service lawyers.

5. Other general measures:

The Government considers no further general measures are necessary because, in relation to the conclusion of the court that the proceedings were not pursued with the diligence required by article 6(1), it has already put in place measures to improve the system for the redress of complaints by members of the United Kingdom ’ s Armed Forces. The changes were made by the Armed Forces Act 2006. The relevant provisions came into effect on 1 January 2008 and apply to complaints made on or after that date.

(a) Under section 334 of the Act the maximum number of stages through which a complaint must pass before reaching the Army Board (or equivalent Board for each of the other Forces) is reduced to two.

(b) The officer who considers a complaint at the first level refers it direct to the Board, unless he considers that it will be within his powers or that of the second level officer to provide any redress which is appropriate.

(c) Under the old system of redress any applicant could take his complaint to the relevant Service Board, which is comprised of the most senior Min isters, civil servants and commanders of the relevant Service. Although the Board could act through two of its members, delay resulted before members of such a senior body could consider and decide all the complaints referred to them. Under section 335 of the Act the Board is able to delegate consideration and decision on complaints which come up to the Board. Delegation is to a panel of at least two members, one of whom must be an officer of specified rank. The appointment of a panel is the normal way of dealing with complaints which reach Board level, other than the very small number (for example any complaint about a very senior appointment) which can only be dealt with satisfactorily by the Board itself.

(d) By regulations made under section 336 of the Act, an independent member (a person who is neither a member of the Armed Forces nor a civil servant) is required for all panels dealing with a wide range of complaints, including any alleging bullying, discrimination, other improper behaviour or bias.

(e) Under section 338 of the Act a Service Complaints Commissioner has been appointed. The person holding that office must not be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant. In relation to the same range of complaints as require an independent panel member, the Commissioner may herself forward the allegations to the Armed Forces, in which case she must be informed at all key stages of the progress of the complaint process.

(f) In addition, the Commissioner has a statutory duty to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, which is also put before Parliament, on the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the whole of the new system.

The Min istry of Defence has published detailed procedures and guidelines in relation to handling service complaints (Redress of Individual Grievance: Service Complaints, Joint Service Publication 831). The procedures emphasise the importance of avoiding delay (paragraph 1.11) and requires that the timelines specified in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 are met (A copy of the procedures is available online http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/88E9A07C-9864-43FF-AF62-C8AFA6A01BB4/0/ j sp831_v22.pdf ).

As a result of these changes the Government believes that the significant periods of inactivity in the course of a service complaint, such as occurred in Mr Crompton ’ s case, will not occur in any future complaint

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

Appendix 2 to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)182

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Bullen & Soneji v United Kingdom

(Application no. 3383/06)

Action Report submitted by the United Kingdom on 8 February 2011

This case concerns the excessive length of confiscation proceedings, which began in 2000 following the applicants ’ conviction (five years for three degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

In 2000 the applicants were convicted of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime. Following their conviction, the prosecution began proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA) for confiscation orders to recover the proceeds of the applicants ’ criminal activity. The European Court found that, although the proceedings were particularly complex, given the high value of the amounts at stake and the possibility of the applicants ’ being re-imprisoned, there were nonetheless cumulative periods of unreasonable delay attributable to the state.

Individual Measures

1. Just satisfaction : the applicants did not submit any claims for just satisfaction and the Court therefore made no award.

2. Other individual measures : the Government considers that no further individual measures are required, given the Court ’ s findings at paragraphs 73-79 of the judgment. The Court dismissed as manifestly unfounded the complaint that there had been unfairness in relation to the making of the confiscation orders, stating, “There are no grounds to suggest that the ultimate re-imposition of the confiscation orders against the applicants, albeit significantly delayed, was inconsistent with the essence of the offences to which they had pleaded guilty or that they were not reasonably foreseeable”. The outcome would not therefore have been different absent the violation. Although there was unreasonable delay in the proceedings, Mr Soneji and Mr Bullen were convicted of serious offences and it remains the case that they should be deprived of their criminal benefit in accordance with the legislation. Mr Soneji ’ s order was paid in full on 22 June 2006. There remains £112,607 (plus interest) outstanding on Mr Bullen ’ s order. The order remains valid and efforts will continue to secure payment.

General Measures

1. Publication : the judgment has been published in the Times (2 nd February 2009), Lloyd ’ s Law Reports Rep. F.C.2010 and VLex worldwide law database. There is also a summary of the case in Public Law 2009, April, page 382.

2. Dissemination : details of the judgment have been disseminated across the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office and Crown Prosecution Service.

3. Other general measures : The following general measures have been taken:

a) The National Policing Improvement Agency issued guidance to Accredited Financial Advisers in April 2009, reminding them of the need to be ready to proceed with confiscation hearings as soon as possible (copy attached).

b) The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office and the Crown Prosecution Service issued the attached guidance in June 2009 to prosecutors stressing the need to make progress in confiscation proceedings, to comply with court directions on timing and to have regard to the reasonable time requirement under Article 6. The guidance is also available on their intranets.

c) The attached letter dates 2 August 2010 from Lord Justice Thomas sets out the steps that have been taken by the UK judiciary to implement the judgment.

These documents can be found on the Execution website: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=DH-DD(2011)388&Lan g uage=lanEnglish&Site=CM

6. All the measures necessary to implement the judgment have now been taken and we request that this case be closed.

Abda Sharif

Deputy Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the Council of Europe

8 February 2011

Appendix 3 to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)182

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

SH v United Kingdom

Application no.19956/06

Action Report submitted by the United Kingdom on 22 December 2010

This case concerns the risk that the applicant, a Bhutanese national of ethnic Nepalese origin, might be subjected to torture or degrading or inhuman treatment in his country of origin, Bhutan , if the removal directions against him were to be enforced (violation of Article 3).

Individual Measures

1. Just satisfaction : None was awarded.

2. Other individual measures: The Government has taken the following individual measures. The applicant ’ s expulsion was halted in accordance with Rule 39, as requested by the Court on 9 August 2007, and the order setting directions for his removal to Bhutan was cancelled the next day ( ie on 10 August 2007). In October 2009, the applicant submitted an application for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of his marriage to a Bhutanese national with leave to remain in the UK as a refugee. After consideration of the application, it was decided on 16 June 2010 to grant the applicant leave to remain until 16 June 2013. The Government notes the Court ’ s judgment that the removal of the applicant to Bhutan would be contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR and will take that judgment into account if and when the applicant seeks further leave to remain on or before 16 June 2013.

3. The Government considers that no further individual measures are required.

General Measures

4. Publication : The case has been reported by a range of publishers of law reports in hard copy and online. It is accessible within the UK , for free, on www.bailii.o r g as well as on the website of the Court.

5. Dissemination : The Government has disseminated the judgment to UK Border Agency staff responsible for obtaining and publishing information about Bhutan and to staff responsible for noting the outcome of the case and deciding whether there is a need for further guidance to case-working staff in the light of the judgment.

6. Other general measures : The Government considers no further general measures are necessary. The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.

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

[2] See also the r ecommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec (2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies