Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)38 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Taylor- Sabori , Allan and Wood against the United Kingdom

(Taylor- Sabori , Application No. 47114/99, judgment of 22 October 2002, final on 22 January 2003;

Allan, Application No. 48539/99, judgment of 5 November 2002, final on 5 February 2003;

Wood, Application No. 23414/02, judgment of 16 November 2004, final on 16 February 2005)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern variously the applicants ’ right to respect for private life (Allan case) (violations of Article 8), the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1), and the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicants ’ complaints under Article 8 (violations of Article 13) (see details in Appendix);

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

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 judgments (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 the 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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)38

Information on the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Taylor- Sabori , Allan and Wood against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

These three cases concern breaches of the applicants ’ right to respect for private life. In Taylor- Sabori , the prosecution ’ s case involved, inter alia , messages sent to the applicant ’ s pager which had been intercepted by the police as part of a covert surveillance operation, between August 1995 and January 1996, using private telecommunications without a statutory system to regulate such devices. In Allan and Wood, covert audio recording devices were used in the applicants ’ cells without a statutory system to regulate such devices (violations of Article 8). Also in Allan, the breach of the applicant ’ s right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, and thus of his right to a fair trial, was violated as evidence was obtained by a police informer who had been placed in the same cell as the applicant and had been instructed by the police, therefore information was acquired against the applicant ’ s will (violation of Article 6 paragraph 1). Finally in all three cases there was a lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicants ’ complaints under Article 8 (violations of Article 13).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Taylor- Sabori

-

-

4 800 EUR

Application No. 47114/99

Paid on 20/03/2003

Allan

-

12 800 EUR

14 442 EUR

Application No. 48539/99

Paid on 15/04/2003

Wood

-

-

550 EUR

550 EUR

Application No. 23414/02

Paid on 29/04/2005

b) Individual measures

In the case of Allan, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages sustained as a result of frustration and invasion of privacy. In the cases of Taylor- Sabori and Wood, the Court found that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

Consequently, no other individual measures were considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

Violations of Article 8

The breaches of the applicants ’ right to respect for private life by the use of covert listening devices without a statutory system to regulate such devices present similarities to these in the Govell group of cases (Resolution DH(2005)68). The introduction of the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) ensured that the installation of covert audio recording devices is now regulated by these two statutory instruments; sections 26(3) and 48(1) specifically deal with covert surveillance in prison cells. The European Court in Kennedy against UK ( Application No. 26839/05) has since confirmed that RIPA complies with the Convention.

Violation of Article 6, paragraph 1

Concerning the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial in the Allan case as a result of the presence of an informant in the applicant ’ s prison cell, the UK indicated that RIPA allowed for the establishment of an Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about covert surveillance and the use of informants by the police.

Violations of Article 13

With regard to the lack of an effective remedy for the Article 8 violations, P art IV of RIPA provides the independent oversight of police powers by a Chief Surveillance Commissioner and establishes the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to consider complaints concerning surveillance powers. In addition, violations of the Convention may be considered unlawful under United Kingdom law and challenged before domestic courts following the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 in 2000 (see Bubbins against UK, Final Resolution CMResDH (2007)101).

In the case of Taylor- Sabori the judgment of the European Court was published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2003) 36 EHRR 17. The Allan judgment was published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2003) 36 EHRR 143. The Wood judgment was reported in the All England Reports ([ 2004] All ER (D) 258 (Nov)).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

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

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2011 at the 1108th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies