CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 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. 11648/85 by Janice JARMAN 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 12 September 1984 by Janice JARMAN against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 July 1985 under file No. 11648/85;           Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure         of the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 12 March 1987 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 proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February 1988;        -   the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicant's         representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:     THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen and a nurse by profession. She is represented before the Commission by Messrs.   Binks, Stern and Partners, Solicitors, London.           The case concerns the corporal punishment of two of her sons at a state school.           On 13 October 1983, one of the applicant's sons was given one stroke of the cane on each hand for failing to attend a detention period.   His hands were swollen and bruised as a result.   The next day, the applicant informed the school of her objection to any form of corporal punishment of her two children.   Consequently the boys were suspended from school until the family accepted the school's disciplinary code.   The applicant refused to send them to another school two and a half miles away.   The applicant was prosecuted, convicted and fined £10 in respect of each child on 20 July 1984 for failing to ensure their attendance at school.   The children were taken into care, the care order only being revoked on 4 December 1984 after the applicant had agreed that they attend an alternative school where corporal punishment was no longer practised.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complained to the Commission of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 12 September 1984 and registered on 9 July 1985.           After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 12 March 1987.   It decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit their written observations on its admissibility and merits.           However, 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 £4500 to the applicant.           The applicant's representatives responded on 6 April 1988 with a proposal that £3000 be paid for the caning and an alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention, £2000 and £1000 be paid for the respective boys' long suspensions from school and the alleged breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (first sentence), £750 be paid for the refusal of the education authorities to respect the applicant's philosophical objections to corporal punishment and the alleged breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (second sentence) and £500 be paid for the breaking up of the family when the boys were taken into care and an alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   A request was also made for the payment of reasonable legal costs.   Nevertheless the applicant's representatives stressed that if, in spite of arguments they had advanced in support of her claims, the Commission felt that the Government's offer was reasonable, the applicant 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 applicant's 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 client.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex gratia sum of £4500 to resolve this application.   It also notes that the applicant has 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 applicant 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 applicant does not intend to pursue this application (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure). (Rule 44-1-b)           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)