CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 11 mai 1988

.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 }      Application No. 12680/87 by Susan Brenda HILL and James Simon SPARROWHAWK against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 11 May 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 21 January 1983 by Susan Brenda HILL and James Simon SPARROWHAWK against the United Kingdom and registered on 29 January 1987 under file No. 12680/87;           Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure         of the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 4 December 1984 to bring         the application to the notice of the respondent Government         and invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibilty and merits;     - ii -            -   the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         26 April 1985 and the observations in reply submitted         by the applicants on 6 September 1985;        -   the Commission's decision of 8 May 1987 to invite the         respondent Government to submit further observations on         the admissibility and merits of the case;        -   the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February         1988;        -   the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicants'         representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:     THE FACTS           The applicants, United Kingdom citizens, are mother and son and live in London.   The second applicant was born in 1971.   They are represented before the Commission by Messrs.   Binks, Stern and Partners, Solicitors, London.           In October 1982, the second applicant, then aged 11, was given one stroke of the cane on his bottom by the headmaster of his state school for forgetting to attend a detention period.   The caning raised a weal on the boy's skin and he was prescribed pain-killing drugs by his family doctor.     COMPLAINTS           The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal punishment constituted violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 21 January 1983 and first registered under file No. 11006/84 along with 5 other cases.   It was then re-registered under a separate file No. 12680/87 on 29 January 1987.           After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 4 December 1984.   It decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 (2) (b) of its Rules of Procedure and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were received on 26 April 1985, to which the applicants replied on 6 September 1985.           On 8 May 1987, the Commission decided to invite the respondent Government to submit further observations on the admissibility and merits of the application pursuant to Rule 43 para. 3 (a) of the Rules of Procedure.           However, further observations were not submitted and the Government expressed the wish on 5 August 1987 to explore the possibility of resolving the case.           The Commission decided on 12 December 1987 to suspend the proceedings and to invite the Government to make specific proposals for the resolution of the application.           On 3 February 1988 the Government made the following offer: The Government recalled the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the abolition of corporal punishment in United Kingdom state schools.   Moreover, without prejudice to their position on the merits of the application, they proposed an ex gratia payment of £3000 to the applicants.           The applicants' representatives responded on 6 April 1988 with a proposal that £3000 be paid for the punishment and alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that £750 be paid to the first applicant in respect of the alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   A request was also made for the payment of reasonable legal costs.   Nevertheless the applicants' representatives stressed that if, in spite of arguments they had advanced in support of their claims, the Commission felt that the Government's offer was reasonable, the applicants would be prepared to accept it.           By letter of 19 April 1988 the Government stated that their offer consisted of a global ex gratia payment which in their view was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.           The applicants' representatives responded on 22 April 1988 requesting the Commission to decide the matter, whilst emphasising that the Government's offer had not been rejected by their clients.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex gratia sum of £3000 to resolve this application.   It also notes that the applicants have not rejected this offer, should the Commission consider it reasonable.   The Commission finds the Government's offer adequate in all the circumstances of the case.   Accordingly, the applicants may be deemed to have accepted it.   Furthermore, the Commission considers, given the reform of the law on corporal punishment in state schools, that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the further retention of this case.   The Commission, therefore, concludes that the issues in the case are resolved and that, in the circumstances, the applicants do not intend to pursue this application (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure).           For these reasons, the Commission           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.          Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission                   (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)