CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 28 janvier 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s968D3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:18pt } .sB0C767F1 { height:0pt; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s18312A14 { margin-top:89.5pt; margin-left:180.75pt; position:absolute } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s44F992B2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; line-height:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } RESOLUTION DH (97) 119 HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATIONS Nos. 15096/89, 15097/89 AND 15098/89 McGLINCHEY, QUINN AND BARROW AGAINST THE UNITED KING ­ DOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 January 1997 at the 582nd 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 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the applications lodged on 29 March 1989 by Mr Paul McGlinchey, Mr Paul Quinn and Mr James Barrow against the United Kingdom (Applications Nos.   15096/89, 15097/89 and 15098/89);   Whereas on 28 January 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, 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 their applications, declared admissible by the Commission on 2 July 1990, the applicants complained that their arrest and detention under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were in breach of Article   5, paragraphs 3 and 5, of the Convention;   Whereas in its report, adopted on 7 December 1990, the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   5, paragraphs   3 and   5, of the Convention;   Whereas at the 462nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 21   September 1991, 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, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   5, paragraphs 3 and 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 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 accorded, 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 21 September 1991, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article   32, paragraph   4, of the Convention to abide by it, and of the outcome of the negotations authorised with the applicants;   Whereas at the 527th meeting of the Deputies held on 7 February 1995, the Representative of the United Kingdom stated that the British authorities had still not reached an agreement with the applicants and asked that the case be sent back to the Commission for proposals concerning just satisfaction;   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, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 13 November 1996;   Whereas at the 582nd meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, by a decision adopted on 28 January 1997, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government's payment, on 10 March 1995, of 1   750 pounds sterling in respect of the applicants' legal costs constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the absence of any other clear claim from the applicants for compensa ­ tion;   Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that the measures taken in response to the judgment of the Court in the case of Brogan and Others (see Resolution DH (90) 23) must be considered appropriate also as execution of the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 32 in the present case,   Declares, having taken note of the measures referred to by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case;   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.