CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 janvier 1995

.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 above applications, which were lodged between 27 January and 1 October 1987 by Mr James Clinton, Mr Sean Simpson, Mr Sean Maguire, Mr Patrick McGeown, Mr John Murray, Mr Philip Campbell, Mr Kieran Smyth, Mr Guy Breslin, Mr John Connolly, Mr Sean McGuinness, Mr L., Mr M. and Mr N. against the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 12690/87; 12731/87; 12823/87; 12900/87; 13032/87; 13033/87; 13246/87; 13231/87; 13232/87; 13233/87; 13310/87; 13553/88; 13555/88);        Whereas on 5 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, as declared admissible by the Commission on 31 May 1991, the applicants complained that their arrest and detention under section 11 of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act 1978 were in breach of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention; the seventh applicant further complained that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest contrary to Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), of the Convention; the first seven applicants also complained that in violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), they had no enforceable right to compensation under Northern Ireland law for their Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), claim;        Whereas in its report adopted on 14 October 1991, the Commission expressed by seven votes to two the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention; unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), of the Convention in the case of Kieran Smyth, the seventh applicant; by seven votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention in the cases of the first seven applicants;        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 this case a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the Convention in all the above-mentioned cases; a violation of Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), of the Convention in the case of Mr Kieran Smyth, the seventh applicant; and a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), in the cases of the first seven applicants;        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 at the same meeting, the Committee of Ministers authorised direct negotiations between the Government of the United Kingdom and the applicants with regard to the just satisfaction to be awarded, limited to the payment of costs and expenses;        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, and of the outcome of the negotiations authorised with the applicants;        Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom subsequently informed the Committee of Ministers that agreements had been reached between the parties according to which seven of the applicants, that is Mr Clinton, Mr Simpson, Mr Maguire, Mr McGeown, Mr Murray, Mr Campbell and Mr Smyth, would receive, jointly, the sum of 4 157 pounds sterling for costs and expenses and the remaining six applicants, that is Mr Breslin, Mr Connolly, Mr McGuinness, Mr L., Mr M., and Mr N., would receive, jointly, the sum of 4 553,12 pounds sterling for costs and expenses;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that in conformity with the agreements reached on 30 March and 29 September 1994 respectively the Government of the United Kingdom paid the sums agreed to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses;        Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Minsters that the measures taken in response to the judgment of the Court in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley (see Resolution DH (91) 39) would prevent the repetition also of the violations found by the Committee of Ministers in the present case,        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.