CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 mai 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s4ECD4776 { margin-top:104.85pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD4E093CC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.9pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s60A2DA68 { margin-top:5.9pt; margin-bottom:5.9pt; text-align:justify } .s760CFBD { margin-top:5.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (97) 225 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 22614/93 LOCHRIE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15   May   1997 at the 590th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 on 16 October 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 8   June 1993 by Mr Steven Lochrie against the United Kingdom (Application No. 22614/93);   Whereas on 29 November 1996 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 11   January 1995, the applicant complained about the refusal by the judge to make an order for costs after he had been acquitted;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by twelve votes to two, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Whereas at the 590th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 15   May   1997, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article   32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 2, of the Convention,   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;   Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.