CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 4 mai 1994

.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 applications lodged between 13 January and 7 March 1989 by Sean and Kathleen McEldowney, Gerard Burns, Sean McGovern, Michael Fox, Michael Mullin, Kevin Mullin, Mark Mullin, Arthur McNally, Francis McKeown, Peter Hughes, Patrick O'Hagan and Raymond Larmour against the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 14550/89, 14604/89, 14632/89, 14673/89, 14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89 and 14781/89);        Whereas on 6 December 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 applications the applicants complained, inter alia, that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were in breach of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention and that they, with the exception of Mr Burns who did not raise the point, had no enforceable right to compensation pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention;        Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible on 5 March 1991 and in its report adopted on 14 October 1991 expressed by nine votes to one the opinion that there had been in all cases a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention and, in all cases except that of Mr Burns, also a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 473rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 2 April 1992, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in all these cases a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the Convention and in all cases except that of Mr Burns, a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5) of the Convention;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicants;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers was informed by the President of the Commission on 21 January 1994 that the Commission (Second Chamber) had found that there was no need for it to complete its proposals as the Government of the United Kingdom and the applicants had agreed on the sums to be awarded for costs and expenses and as no other claims had been put forward;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures taken following its decision of 2 April 1992, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that it considered that it had complied with the obligations deriving from the Committee of Minister's decision of 2 April 1992 by having entered the derogation pursuant to Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention, notified on 23 December 1988 and 23 March 1989 to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (see Resolution DH (90) 23 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan and others case);        Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicants the sums agreed in respect of just satisfaction,        Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;        Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.