Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)59

concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 November 1999 (Grand Chamber judgment) in the case of Hashman and Harrup against the United Kingdom

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 July 2005 at the 933rd meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by P rotocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hashman and Harrup case (application No. 25594/94) delivered on 25 November 1999 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on the same day under Article 44 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case involved a violation of Article 10 of the Convention due to the fact that the order by which the applicants, who had not breached the peace, were bound over to keep the peace and not to behave contra bonos mores did not comply with the requirement of Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention that it should be “prescribed by law”;

Recalling also that the Court, in its judgment, emphasised in this respect the lack of precision of such a binding over order, which offered little guidance to the applicants as to the type of conduct which would amount to a breach of the order, with the result that it could not be said that what they were being bound over not to do must have been apparent to them;

Recalling that the undertaking of the High Contracting P arties to abide by the Court ' s judgments in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention implies, inter alia , an obligation to take general measures without delay in order to prevent the recurrence of violations similar to those found by the Court;

Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment;

Noting that the judgment has been published in several law reports ( inter alia : [2000] Crim LR 185; [1999] EHRLR 342; (2000) 30 EHRR 241; Times LR, 01/10/98);

Noting also with interest the publication of the Crown P rosecution Service Casework Bulletin No. 6 of 2000 , giving guidance to prosecutors, first, that they should not ask courts to consider binding-over orders unless there is evidence of past conduct which, if repeated, is likely to cause a breach of the peace in future, and second, suggesting that courts could be encouraged to ensure that the behaviour to be avoided was made quite clear in the order;

Noting further that a consultation document entitled “Bind Overs: A P ower for the 21st Century” was issued in March 2003, including a recommendation that courts issuing binding-over orders should not specify “to keep the peace” or “to be of good behaviour” but rather that the individual concerned is bound over to do or refrain from doing specific activities, as well as a recommendation that the details of the conduct specified by the court should be included in an order served by the court on all relevant parties;

Regretting that to date no P ractice Direction has been issued and no other measure taken in accordance with these recommendations;

Emphasising that it is now more than five years since the judgment was delivered;

Noting further that according to the information provided by the Government, around 20 000 persons are bound over each year, of whom a proportion have, like the applicants in the present case, not been found to have committed a breach of the peace,

URGES the United Kingdom authorities to take the remaining measures necessary to meet its obligations under the Convention without further delay;

CALLS U P ON the government to keep the Committee informed of the timetable foreseen for the adoption of these measures and of the progress made in this regard;

DECIDES to resume consideration of this case, as far as general measures are concerned, at the latest within six months from the date of adoption of the present interim resolution.