CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 mai 1992

.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 2 February 1989   by Times Newspapers Ltd and Andrew Neil against the United Kingdom (Application No.14644/89);        Whereas on 19 November 1991 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 has 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 in their application the applicants complained that a judgment of the House of Lords required them to pay partial costs and to account to the Attorney General for any profits made from their publication of an extract from a book written by a former agent of the security service;        Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 11 April 1991 and in its report adopted on 8 October 1991 expressed the opinion by eleven votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 13 nor of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 10 (art. 13+10, art. 14+10) of the Convention;        Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention,        Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there has been no violation of Articles 10, 13 and 14 (art. 10, art. 13, art. 14) of the Convention in this case.