Search
document

Document text Analytics

CLARKE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15767/89 • ECHR ID: 001-49396

Document date: September 21, 1994

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

CLARKE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15767/89 • ECHR ID: 001-49396

Document date: September 21, 1994

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 application lodged

on 9 October 1989 by Mr Arnold Ernest Clarke against the United

Kingdom (Application No. 15767/89);

Whereas on 7 December 1992 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 his application, declared admissible by the

Commission on 14 October 1991, the applicant complained that he

was unable to have the continued lawfulness of his detention

determined by a court while he was serving a discretionary life

sentence;

Whereas in its report adopted on 14 October 1992, the

Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had

been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the

Convention;

Whereas, at the 491st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies,

held on 1 April 1993, 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 4 (art. 5-4), of the

Convention;

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 applicant, proposals

supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated

10 September 1993;

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom formulated

supplementary observations with regard to the Commission's

proposals for just satisfaction, which observations were

transmitted to the Commission on 22 November 1993 for any comment

it might wish to make;

Whereas on 9 December 1993, the President of the Commission

informed the President of the Ministers' Deputies that the

Commission had taken note of the observations of the Government

of the United Kingdom but had no comment to make with regard to

the question raised therein;

Whereas, at the 507th meeting of the Deputies, held

on 3 February 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in

accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the

Convention, that the Government of the United Kingdom was to pay

the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months,

500 British pounds in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government

of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken

following its decisions of 1 April 1993 and 3 February 1994,

having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under

Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide

by them;

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the

Committee of Ministers that the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which

entered into force on 1 October 1992, (see inter alia

Resolution DH (92) 24), would also apply to situations comparable

to the one at issue in the present case;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on

24 February 1994 the Government of the United Kingdom paid the

applicant the total sum of 500 British pounds sterling as just

satisfaction,

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