CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 juin 1986

.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 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Fell delivered on 28 June 1984 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case had its origin in two applications against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights by Mr John Joseph Campbell and Father Patrick Fell, both United Kingdom citizens, under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention, alleging that they had been convicted by the Board of Visitors of disciplinary charges amounting in substance to "criminal" charges, without having been afforded a hearing complying with the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6) of the convention contending that the delay in allowing them to obtain legal advice following the incident of 16 September 1976 involved breaches of their right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 (art. 6), and of their right to respect for correspondence, guaranteed by Article 8 (art. 8), maintaining that the refusal to allow independent medical examination involved a further infringement of their rights under Article 6 (art. 6);   Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights;   Whereas, in its judgment of 28 June 1984, the Court:   I. Preliminary   1. Rejects unanimously the Government's plea that Mr Campbell failed to exhaust domestic remedies;   2. Holds unanimously that it has no jurisdiction to examine Father Fell's submission that his complaints concerning the Board of Visitors' proceedings are now admissible;   II. As regards the Board of Visitors' proceedings in the case of Mr Campbell   3. Holds by four votes to three that Article 6 (art. 6) of the convention was applicable thereto;   4. Holds by four votes to three that there has not been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), by reason of the fact that the Board did not conduct its adjudication in public;   5. Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), in that the Board did not make public its decision;   6. Holds by five votes to two that Mr Campbell's inability to obtain legal assistance or legal representation constituted a violation of sub-paragraphs b and c, respectively, of Article 6, paragraph 3 (art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c);   7. Holds unanimously that on the other points at issue there has been no violation of Article 6 (art. 6);   III. As regards the applicants' access to legal advice in connection with their personal injuries claim   8. Holds unanimously that there have been breaches of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), and Article 8 (art. 8);   IV. As regards the conditions for visits to Father Fell by his solicitors   9. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), and that it is not necessary also to examine this matter under Article 8 (art. 8);   V. As regards the restrictions on Father Fell's personal correspondence   10. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8);   VI. As regards Article 13 (art. 13)   11. Holds unanimously that there has been a breach of this article (art. 13) to the extent specified in paragraph 128 of the judgment;   VII. As regards the application of Article 50 (art. 50)   12. Holds unanimously that the United Kingdom is to pay to the applicants, in respect of legal costs and expenses, the sum of thirteen thousand pounds sterling (£13 000), together with any value added tax that may be due;   Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention";   Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention to abide by the judgment;   Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information is summarised in the appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United Kingdom has paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of the Court of 28 June 1984,   Declares, after taking note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its function under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (86) 7   Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during the examination of the case of Campbell and Fell before the Committee of Ministers   In paragraph 104 of its judgment, when dealing with the violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13 (art. 6, art. 8, art. 13), the European Court of Human Rights held that it could not examine the compatibility of the modified law and practice with the convention, but noted that, in particular with effect from December 1981, substantial changes had been made in this area by the United Kingdom with a view to ensuring the observance of the engagements undertaken by it in the convention. In paragraph 141, when dealing with the violations of Article 8 (art. 8) and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 13+8), the Court again noted that substantial changes had been introduced in the correspondence control regime since 1981 which did appear in principle to have led to a significant improvement.   Changes have also been made in the United Kingdom in the practice relating to prison disciplinary tribunals.   There is now a right to publicly-funded legal representation before these tribunals in similar cases to those with which the Court was concerned in the case of Campbell and Fell.   In such cases, steps will be taken to publicise the tribunal's decision.   These changes were made by means of a letter from the Prison Department to chairmen of Boards of Visitors, copied to prison governors, dated 12 July 1984.   The Government of the United Kingdom has paid to the applicants the sums ordered to be paid by way of costs and expenses in the Court's judgment of 28 June 1984.