CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 2 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 }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the application lodged on 3 December 1980 by Mrs Maxine Warwick and her eldest child, Karen (hereinafter referred to as "the first applicant" and "the second applicant" respectively), against the United Kingdom (No. 9471/81);   Whereas on 1 September 1986 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas the first applicant complained that the refusal of the competent authority to give her an assurance that one of her daughters, L, would not be subjected to corporal punishment at school amounted to a failure to respect her philosophical convictions, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the convention, and the second applicant complained that corporal punishment inflicted upon her on 5 June 1980 constituted degrading treatment or punishment, contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention, both applicants invoking also Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 13 March 1984 and in its report adopted on 18 July 1986 expressed the opinion:   - by twelve votes to five, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention with regard to the second applicant;   - unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the convention with regard to the first applicant;   - by thirteen votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the convention read in conjunction with Article 3 (art. 13+3) with regard to the second applicant;   - unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the convention read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 13+P1-2) with regard to the first applicant;   Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it accepted that there had been a breach of the first applicant's rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 (art. 13+P1-2) of the convention, that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which received the Royal Assent on 7 November 1986, provided in Sections 47 and 48 for the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools, that it was proposed to bring these provisions of the Act into force on 15 August 1987, so as to take effect from the beginning of the school year, this being the earliest practicable date, given the need for those schools which might still have corporal punishment to devise alternative disciplinary policies, and that it did not accept on the particular facts of the case that the corporal punishment inflicted upon the second applicant attained a sufficient level of seriousness to be regarded as degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention;   Having examined the proposals made by the Commission concerning just satisfaction for the applicants,   Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention:   i.    that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) to the convention with regard to the first applicant;   ii.   that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the convention read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 13+P1-2) with regard to the first applicant;   Notes, having voted in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, that the two-thirds majority required by those provisions has been attained neither on whether there has been a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention nor on whether there has been a violation of Article 13 of the convention read in conjunction with Article 3 (art 13+3) with regard to the second applicant;   Takes note of the information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom;   Recommends, under Rule 5 of the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the convention, that the Government of the United Kingdom pay to the applicants the sum of £16 950 for their costs in the proceedings;   Decides that no further action is called for and accordingly removes the examination of the case from its agenda.