CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mars 1989

.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. 11756/85 by G.S. against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 March 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   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 26 October 1982 by Greogry SWAN against the United Kingdom and registered on 19 September 1985 under file No. 11756/85;     - ii -     11756/85             Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of         the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 17 July 1986 to bring the         application to the notice of the respondent Government         and invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibility and merits ;        -   the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         5 August 1987 and 5 February 1988, upon which the applicant         had no comment ;        -   the Commission's partial decision on admissibility of         10 October 1988 and its decision to request further         observations from the Government on admissibility and         merits ;        -   the proposals submitted by the Government on 17 January 1989 ;        -   the response of the applicant on 17 February 1989 ;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows: THE FACTS           The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1969 and resident in W., England.   He is represented before the Commission by his mother and Messrs.   Wilford McBain, solicitors, London.           He complained to the Commission of severe corporal punishment he had received in an English State school.   The teacher concerned was unsuccessfully prosecuted, during which time he was suspended from his job but, subsequently, on his acquittal, re-instated with a formal disciplinary warning.   By that time the applicant had been removed from the school.   Civil proceedings for assault were settled out of court with a £300 payment.   The applicant originally claimed to have been a victim of a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was originally introduced by the applicant, together with his mother as applicant, on 26 October 1982 when his representatives wrote to the Secretary to the Commission submitting details of the complaints.   An application form was sent to them on 16 November 1982, with the request that it should be returned, duly completed.   The applicant's solicitors' next letter was dated 5 September 1985, when the application form was returned.   It was received on 19 September 1985 and registered on that date.           After a preliminary examination of the case by a Rapporteur, the Commission examined the case on 17 July 1986 but then adjourned it.   It renewed its examination of the case on 12 March 1987 and decided to give notice of the application, pursuant to Rule 42(2)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, to the respondent Government.           On 5 August 1987, after an extension of the time-limit, the Government expressed their wish to resolve the application by virtue of the abolition of corporal punishment in State schools by the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which came into force on 15 August 1987, in view of the fact that the applicant's mother had stated in the application to the Commission that its object was, inter alia, to obtain a reform of the domestic law.   The applicant submitted no response to the Government's proposal.           On 12 December 1987 the Commission decided to invite the respondent Government to make specific proposals for the resolution of the case.   However on 5 February 1988 the Government submitted written observations on the admissibility of the application.   On 29 April 1988 the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that the applicant relied on the submissions in the original application and had no further observations to make.           On 10 October 1988 the Commission declared the mother's part of the application inadmissible and requested the Government to submit further observations, pursuant to Rule 42(3)(a) of its Rules of Procedure, concerning the son's part of the application.           On 17 January 1989 the Government submitted further proposals for the resolution of the application:   Drawing attention to the reform of the English law regarding State school corporal punishment and the £300 already obtained by the applicant through civil proceedings, they offered an ex gratia payment of £2,700.   On 17 February 1989 the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that their client accepted the offer and wished to withdraw the case.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes the Government's offer to resolve the application by the ex gratia payment of £2,700 and the applicant's acceptance of that proposal and his wish to withdraw the case.   The Commission finds, in view of the reform of the English law on State school corporal punishment, that the application presents no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which require its retention.   In these circumstances, the Commission accedes to the applicant's request to withdraw   his case.           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)