WARWICK AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 9471/81 • ECHR ID: 001-49277
Document date: March 2, 1989
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
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 3 December 1980 by
Mrs Maxine Warwick and her eldest child, Karen (hereinafter referred
to as "the first applicant" and "the second applicant" respectively),
against the United Kingdom (No. 9471/81);
Whereas on 1 September 1986 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
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 the first applicant complained that the refusal of the
competent authority to give her an assurance that one of her
daughters, L, would not be subjected to corporal punishment at school
amounted to a failure to respect her philosophical convictions,
contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the convention, and
the second applicant complained that corporal punishment inflicted
upon her on 5 June 1980 constituted degrading treatment or punishment,
contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention, both applicants
invoking also Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on
13 March 1984 and in its report adopted on 18 July 1986 expressed the
opinion:
- by twelve votes to five, that there had been a violation of
Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention with regard to the second
applicant;
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the convention with regard to the first
applicant;
- by thirteen votes to four, that there had been a violation of
Article 13 of the convention read in conjunction with Article 3
(art. 13+3) with regard to the second applicant;
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the
convention read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
(art. 13+P1-2) with regard to the first applicant;
Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of
Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it
accepted that there had been a breach of the first applicant's rights
under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 (art. 13+P1-2) of the
convention, that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which received the
Royal Assent on 7 November 1986, provided in Sections 47 and 48 for
the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools, that it was
proposed to bring these provisions of the Act into force on
15 August 1987, so as to take effect from the beginning of the school
year, this being the earliest practicable date, given the need for
those schools which might still have corporal punishment to devise
alternative disciplinary policies, and that it did not accept on the
particular facts of the case that the corporal punishment inflicted
upon the second applicant attained a sufficient level of seriousness
to be regarded as degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3)
of the convention;
Having examined the proposals made by the Commission concerning just
satisfaction for the applicants,
Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,
paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention:
i. that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-2) to the convention with regard to the first applicant;
ii. that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the convention
read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 13+P1-2)
with regard to the first applicant;
Notes, having voted in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, that
the two-thirds majority required by those provisions has been attained
neither on whether there has been a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of
the convention nor on whether there has been a violation of Article 13
of the convention read in conjunction with Article 3 (art 13+3) with
regard to the second applicant;
Takes note of the information provided by the Government of the United
Kingdom;
Recommends, under Rule 5 of the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers for the application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the
convention, that the Government of the United Kingdom pay to the
applicants the sum of £16 950 for their costs in the proceedings;
Decides that no further action is called for and accordingly removes
the examination of the case from its agenda.