CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 mai 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  INTRODUCTION   1.       This Report relates to Application No. 10061/82 introduced against the United Kingdom by Mr. Patrick Joseph Conroy on 30 March 1981 under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25). The application was registered on 17 August 1982.   2.       The European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible on 5 July 1985.   The applicant, who had represented himself in the proceedings before the Commission up to the time of the admissibility decision, was subsequently represented by Memery Crystal & Company, solicitors, London.           The Commission then proceeded to carry out its tasks under Article 28 of the Convention (art. 28), which provides that:   "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:   (a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;   (b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."   4.       The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and, at its session on 15 May 1986, adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention (art. 30), is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   G. TENEKIDES                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL   PART ONE   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   5.       The applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1922 and lives in Blackley, Manchester, United Kingdom.   In 1979 he was dismissed from his post as a printer's assistant by his employers, Cunliffe Engravers at Walkden, a firm which since 1970 had operated a closed shop agreement with SOGAT (Society of Graphical and Allied Trades).   His dismissal was the consequence of the applicant's expulsion from his trade union.   6.       He had been an active member of SOGAT for 35 years and was, in 1976, chairman of the SOGAT chapel in Cunliffe's.   He subsequently became involved in a dispute with SOGAT and distributed pamphlets alleging financial irregularities and breaches of union rules by branch officers of the union.   7.       He was then summoned to appear before the union's National Executive Council.   The hearing of the Council took place in the applicant's absence on 14 March 1979.   He was charged and found guilty of breaching union rules by distributing pamphlets and thus acting to the detriment of the union.   He was then expelled from the union.   An appeal to the Independent Review Committee of the TUC against this decision was unsuccessful.   8.       As a consequence of his expulsion from the union he was dismissed by his employers on 20 April 1979.   9.       The applicant then brought an action for unfair dismissal before an Industrial Tribunal in Manchester.   However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was in fundamental breach of his contract of employment which required union membership and his dismissal had to be regarded as fair under the applicable legal provisions.   In July 1980 he was refused legal aid by the Law Society for the purpose of appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.   10.      The applicant was subsequently granted legal aid to bring proceedings against SOGAT before the High Court.   In his action, initiated on 22 May 1981, the applicant claimed that the procedure leading to his expulsion was in breach of the rules of natural justice.   He sought his reinstatement as a member of the union, damages, interest and costs.   11.      Legal aid was subsequently withdrawn by the Law Society on 31 January 1984 after receipt of counsel's opinion that the applicant's action was unlikely to succeed.   12.      The applicant decided to continue with the action and to represent himself in the proceedings.   The action was dismissed by the Manchester High Court following a hearing from 21 - 25 January 1985. An appeal against this decision to the Court of Appeal was dismissed sometime in November 1985.   13.      In his application to the Commission the applicant complained that as a consequence of his dismissal from SOGAT he had been deprived of his job and livelihood.   14.      On 7 December 1983 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government for observations on its admissibility and merits insofar as it raised issues under inter alia Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (art. 10, art. 11).   The Commission subsequently declared the application admissible in a decision dated 5 July 1985.   15.      Finally, a friendly settlement of the case was reached, as described in Part Two.   PART TWO   SOLUTION REACHED   16.      Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement, in accordance with Article 28 para. b of the Convention (art. 28-b), and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   17.      In a letter dated 3 March 1986, the respondent Government offered compensation consisting of £37,600 for loss of earnings and £550 for non-pecuniary losses (anxiety and stress).   A full narrative of legal costs was requested from the applicant's legal representative.   18.      The applicant's legal representative accepted the offer in respect of loss of earnings and non-pecuniary loss in a letter dated 11 April 1986 and provided the information requested as regards legal costs.   19.      In a letter dated 9 May 1986 the Agent of the United Kingdom Government, Mr. Hendry, stated as follows:   "I have the honour to refer to your letter of 21 April 1986 and to confirm that the Government are prepared to pay the sum of £38,150 which was offered in my letter of 3 March 1986 in full and final settlement of the claims made by the applicant in this case.   As regards legal costs, the sum of £1,518 (including VAT) has been agreed with the applicant's solicitor as the amount to be paid for all the legal costs incurred by the applicant.   If these sums are acceptable to the applicant the Government are ready to make payment at the earliest opportunity."   20.      Finally, the applicant's legal representative indicated in a telex dated 12 May 1986 that agreement had now been concluded on all outstanding matters.   21.      At its session on 15 May 1986, the Commission noted that the parties had come to an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. The Commission found, having regard to Article 28 para. b of the Convention (art. 28-b), that a friendly settlement of the matter had been secured on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the Convention.           For the above reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission       (H. C. KRÜGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)