CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 28 octobre 1997

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                FIRST CHAMBER                          Application No. 24519/94                                Pauline Lines                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 28 October 1997)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   PART I:     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   PART II:    SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Pauline Lines against the United Kingdom on 25 April 1994. It was registered on 4 July 1994 under file No. 24519/94.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Sean Reynolds a solicitor practising in Hampshire. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Martin Eaton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   3.     On 17 January 1997 the Commission declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:         "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 at the same time 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 on 28 October 1997 adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   5.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              Mrs    J. LIDDY, President            MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1939 and she is currently resident in a group home in the United Kingdom following her release in 1995 from a psychiatric hospital.   7.     Since the age of fifteen the applicant has spent substantial periods of her life in psychiatric hospitals.   8.     With the introduction of the Mental Health Act 1983, the applicant's then detention (consequent on her serious assault on a fellow patient) under section 71(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959 became the equivalent of a hospital order together with a restriction order without limit of time under the 1983 Act. The applicant was conditionally discharged on 29 June 1984 by warrant of the Secretary of State.   9.     On 27 April 1992 she was re-admitted as an informal patient and on 21 July 1992 she was admitted involuntarily under section 3 of the 1983 Act. On 4 March 1993 the applicant was formally recalled to hospital by warrant of the Secretary of State pursuant to section 42(3) of the 1983 Act. The Mental Health Review Tribunal ("MHRT") did not recommend her discharge in April 1993 but she was conditionally discharged on 30 June 1993 by the Secretary of State.   10.    Having been again admitted to a psychiatric hospital in July 1993 under section 3 of the 1983 Act, the applicant was formally recalled by warrant of the Secretary of State on 3 December 1993 pursuant to section 42(3) of the 1983 Act on the grounds that whilst in hospital the applicant's condition had not sufficiently improved.   11.    Her case was referred on 7 December 1993 to the MHRT by the Secretary of State and in February 1994 the MHRT, having reviewed the applicant's case, did not recommend her discharge. In March 1995 the applicant was discharged by the Secretary of State into a group home in the community where she resides to date.   12.    The applicant complained that she had no entitlement to apply for a review of the legality of her detention between 27 July 1993 and 3 December 1993. She became entitled to a MHRT review in December 1993 only because the Secretary of State exercised his discretion to recall her under section 42(3) of the 1983 Act and because of the consequent obligation on the Secretary of State to refer her case within one month of recall to the MHRT. The applicant invoked Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   13.    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. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement.   14.    By letter dated 3 February 1997 the applicant made proposals for a friendly settlement of the case including a request for legislative change, for compensation and for the discharge of her legal costs before the Commission. By letter 14 April 1997 the Government referred to recent domestic jurisprudence which they considered indicated that no legislative change would be required. The Government, however, offered to settle the case on the basis of payment of the sum of £2000 in compensation together with the reasonable costs of the Strasbourg application.   15.    By letter dated 3 July 1997 the applicant stated that a friendly settlement of the case had been agreed. By letter dated 7 July 1997 the Government confirmed that the terms of the settlement reached were those outlined in their letter of 14 April 1997. The Government also enclosed a copy of a letter from the applicant's representatives which acknowledged receipt of a sum of £3591.75, of which £2000 represented compensation and the remainder represented the applicant's legal costs before the Commission.   16.    At its session on 28 October 1997 the Commission found that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   17.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber