CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 octobre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9975F4A9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEAF98D1B { width:7.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sADFBB2FF { width:7.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10567/05 by Karen GREIG against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Karen Greig, is a British national who was born in 1963 and lives in Lincoln. She was represented before the Court by Tyndallwoods, a firm of solicitors based in Birmingham. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background facts The applicant was, at the material time, an Air Engineering Mechanic in the Royal Navy. She claimed that she was dismissed from the armed forces on 7 February 1989 pursuant to the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces. 2.     Domestic proceedings On 11 August 1995 the applicant submitted a claim to the London (South) Employment Tribunal arguing that her dismissal, and the treatment to which she was subjected, breached the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”). As a result of the House of Lords' judgment in MacDonald (AP) (Appellant) v. Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) dated 19 June 2003, the applicant withdrew her domestic proceedings on 9   December 2003. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The law and practice in force at the relevant time concerning the dismissal of homosexuals from the armed forces are described in the judgments of the Court in the cases of Lustig-Prean and Beckett v.   the United Kingdom (nos.   31417/96 and 32377/96, 27   September 1999) and Smith and Grady v.   the United Kingdom (nos.   33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR   1999-VI). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14, about:   (a)   her dismissal from the armed forces pursuant to the absolute policy against homosexuals in those forces; and   (b)   the harassment to which she had been subjected in the process of her dismissal. THE LAW Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.” On 20 December 2005 the respondent Government were given notice of the application and requested to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. In their submissions dated 28 April 2006 the Government accepted that the tribunal proceedings lodged by the applicant were effective within the meaning of Article   35   §   1 of the Convention so that her claim had, therefore, been introduced within the six-month time-limit laid down by the same provision. They further accepted that the applicant's dismissal from the armed forces, as well as the investigation into her sexual orientation, violated Article 8 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article   13. On 29 August 2007 the Government submitted their proposal for a friendly settlement of the case. They accepted that the applicant's rights under Articles 8 and 13 had been breached and agreed to pay her a sum of GBP   89,383 in full and final settlement of her complaints. The Government's offer comprised GBP 65,383 in respect of pecuniary loss, GBP 19,000 for non-pecuniary loss and GBP 5,000 for costs and expenses. On 26 September 2007 the applicant confirmed that she accepted the Government's offer in full and final settlement of her application. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President