Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF FOX, CAMPBELL AND HARTLEY

Doc ref: 12244/86;12245/86;12383/86 • ECHR ID: 001-55519

Document date: December 13, 1991

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

CASE OF FOX, CAMPBELL AND HARTLEY

Doc ref: 12244/86;12245/86;12383/86 • ECHR ID: 001-55519

Document date: December 13, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the

Convention"),

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of

Human Rights in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley delivered

on 30 August 1990 and 27 March 1991 and transmitted on those days

to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in three applications

against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission

of Human Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention on

16 June 1986 by Mr Bernard Fox and Ms Maire Campbell and on

2 September 1986 by Mr Samuel Hartley, all three Irish citizens,

who complained of their arrest and detention in Northern Ireland

for periods ranging from thirty to forty hours approximately

under Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

Act 1978;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 13 July 1989;

Whereas in its judgment of 30 August 1990 the Court:

- held by four votes to three that there had been

a breach of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention;

- held unanimously that there had been no breach of

Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2);

- held by four votes to three that there had been a breach of

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

- held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the

complaints brought under Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and

Article 13 (art. 13);

- held unanimously that the question of the application of

Article 50 (art. 50) was not ready for decision;

Whereas in its judgment of 27 March 1991 the Court:

- held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay to the

applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses, the sum of

11 000 pounds, together with any value added tax that may be

chargeable;

- held by six votes to one that, in respect of non-pecuniary

damage, the principal judgment in itself constituted sufficient

just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50);

- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just

satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention;

Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to

inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of

the judgments of 30 August 1990 and 27 March 1991, having regard

to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention

to abide by them;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee

of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the

Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of

the judgments, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution;

Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United

Kingdom has paid the applicants the sum provided for in the

judgment of 27 March 1991,

Declares, after having taken note of the information

supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has

exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the

Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (91)39

Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom

during the examination of the case of Fox, Campbell and

Hartley by the Committee of Ministers

As appears from paragraph 22 of the Court's judgment of

30 August 1990, Section 11, Sub-section 1 of the Northern Ireland

(Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which contained no requirement

that the suspicions of officers arresting suspects should be

"reasonable", was replaced by Section 6 of the Northern Ireland

(Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, which came into effect on

15 June 1987, subsequent to the facts which gave rise to the

present case.

This new provision is confined to conferring a power of

entry and search of premises for the purpose of arresting persons

under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary

Provisions) Act 1984 (now Section 14 of the Prevention of

Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989). These latter

provisions expressly limit powers of arrest without a warrant to

cases in which there are "reasonable grounds" for suspicion.

In view of the above it is the Government's view that no

action needs to be taken with reference to the violation of

Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), found by the Court.

In fact, the Government of the United Kingdom considers

that, provided the national law complies with the state's

obligations under Article 5, paragraphs 1 to 4 (art. 5-1,

art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4), of the Convention, no question of

an "enforceable right to compensation" arises since Article 5,

paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), does not require in itself that

paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3,

art. 5-4) be incorporated into domestic law. As the Government

of the United Kingdom is not incorporating the Convention as such

into British law, and is not obliged to do so, it follows that

there is no basis on which it could legislate for Article 5,

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

The sum of 12 650 pounds (including value added tax) awarded

jointly to the three applicants in respect of costs and expenses

was paid on 3 April 1991.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant