Search
document

JAMES CLINTON, SEAN SIMPSON, SEAN MAGUIRE, PATRICK McGEOWN, JOHN MURRAY, PHILIP CAMPBELL, KIERAN SMYTH, GUY BRESLIN, JOHN CONNOLLY, SEAN McGUINNESS, L. , M. AND N. AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12690/87, 12731/87, 12823/87, 12900/87, 13032/87, 13033/87, 13246/87, 13231/87, 13232/87, 13233/87, ... • ECHR ID: 001-49543

Document date: January 11, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

JAMES CLINTON, SEAN SIMPSON, SEAN MAGUIRE, PATRICK McGEOWN, JOHN MURRAY, PHILIP CAMPBELL, KIERAN SMYTH, GUY BRESLIN, JOHN CONNOLLY, SEAN McGUINNESS, L. , M. AND N. AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12690/87, 12731/87, 12823/87, 12900/87, 13032/87, 13033/87, 13246/87, 13231/87, 13232/87, 13233/87, ... • ECHR ID: 001-49543

Document date: January 11, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32

(art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European

Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31)

of the Convention relating to the above applications, which were

lodged between 27 January and 1 October 1987 by Mr James Clinton,

Mr Sean Simpson, Mr Sean Maguire, Mr Patrick McGeown,

Mr John Murray, Mr Philip Campbell, Mr Kieran Smyth,

Mr Guy Breslin, Mr John Connolly, Mr Sean McGuinness,

Mr L., Mr M. and Mr N. against the United Kingdom (Applications

Nos. 12690/87; 12731/87; 12823/87; 12900/87; 13032/87; 13033/87;

13246/87; 13231/87; 13232/87; 13233/87; 13310/87; 13553/88;

13555/88);

Whereas on 5 December 1991 the Commission transmitted the said

report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of

three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1),

of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought

before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of

Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas in their applications, as declared admissible by the

Commission on 31 May 1991, the applicants complained that their

arrest and detention under section 11 of the Northern Ireland

Emergency Provisions Act 1978 were in breach of Article 5,

paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention; the seventh applicant

further complained that he was not informed promptly of the reasons

for his arrest contrary to Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), of

the Convention; the first seven applicants also complained that in

violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), they had no

enforceable right to compensation under Northern Ireland law for

their Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), claim;

Whereas in its report adopted on 14 October 1991, the

Commission expressed by seven votes to two the opinion that there

had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the

Convention; unanimously that there had been a violation of

Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), of the Convention in the case of

Kieran Smyth, the seventh applicant; by seven votes to two that

there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of

the Convention in the cases of the first seven applicants;

Whereas, at the 473rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, held

on 2 April 1992, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the

opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in

accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a

violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention

in all the above-mentioned cases; a violation of Article 5,

paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), of the Convention in the case of

Mr Kieran Smyth, the seventh applicant; and a violation of

Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), in the cases of the first seven

applicants;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made

by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just

satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants;

Whereas at the same meeting, the Committee of Ministers

authorised direct negotiations between the Government of the United

Kingdom and the applicants with regard to the just satisfaction to

be awarded, limited to the payment of costs and expenses;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of

the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken following its

decision of 2 April 1992, having regard to the United Kingdom's

obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the

Convention to abide by it, and of the outcome of the negotiations

authorised with the applicants;

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom subsequently

informed the Committee of Ministers that agreements had been

reached between the parties according to which seven of the

applicants, that is Mr Clinton, Mr Simpson, Mr Maguire, Mr McGeown,

Mr Murray, Mr Campbell and Mr Smyth, would receive, jointly, the

sum of 4 157 pounds sterling for costs and expenses and the

remaining six applicants, that is Mr Breslin, Mr Connolly,

Mr McGuinness, Mr L., Mr M., and Mr N., would receive, jointly, the

sum of 4 553,12 pounds sterling for costs and expenses;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that in

conformity with the agreements reached on 30 March and

29 September 1994 respectively the Government of the United Kingdom

paid the sums agreed to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses;

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the

Committee of Minsters that the measures taken in response to the

judgment of the Court in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley

(see Resolution DH (91) 39) would prevent the repetition also of

the violations found by the Committee of Ministers in the present

case,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the

Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this

case;

Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the

Commission in this case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant