Search
document

SEAN AND KATHLEEN McELDOWNEY AND ELEVEN OTHERS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14550/89, 14604/89, 14673/89, 14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89, ... • ECHR ID: 001-49383

Document date: May 4, 1994

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

SEAN AND KATHLEEN McELDOWNEY AND ELEVEN OTHERS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14550/89, 14604/89, 14673/89, 14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89, ... • ECHR ID: 001-49383

Document date: May 4, 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 applications

lodged between 13 January and 7 March 1989 by Sean and

Kathleen McEldowney, Gerard Burns, Sean McGovern, Michael Fox,

Michael Mullin, Kevin Mullin, Mark Mullin, Arthur McNally,

Francis McKeown, Peter Hughes, Patrick O'Hagan and

Raymond Larmour against the United Kingdom (Applications

Nos. 14550/89, 14604/89, 14632/89, 14673/89, 14706/89, 14708/89,

14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89 and 14781/89);

Whereas on 6 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 the applicants complained,

inter alia, that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of

the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were

in breach of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention

and that they, with the exception of Mr Burns who did not raise

the point, had no enforceable right to compensation pursuant to

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

Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible

on 5 March 1991 and in its report adopted on 14 October 1991

expressed by nine votes to one the opinion that there had been

in all cases a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3),

of the Convention and, in all cases except that of Mr Burns, also

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

Convention;

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 all these

cases a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the

Convention and in all cases except that of Mr Burns, a violation

of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5) 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 applicants;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers was informed by the

President of the Commission on 21 January 1994 that the

Commission (Second Chamber) had found that there was no need for

it to complete its proposals as the Government of the United

Kingdom and the applicants had agreed on the sums to be awarded

for costs and expenses and as no other claims had been put

forward;

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;

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the

Committee of Ministers that it considered that it had complied

with the obligations deriving from the Committee of Minister's

decision of 2 April 1992 by having entered the derogation

pursuant to Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention, notified on

23 December 1988 and 23 March 1989 to the Secretary General of

the Council of Europe (see Resolution DH (90) 23 concerning the

judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan and

others case);

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that the

Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicants the sums

agreed in respect of 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