CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s407D860B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA0770068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:32pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3A0EFA1 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s11709F00 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } r esolution DH (99) 719 Concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 February 1999 in the case of Cable and others against the United Kingdom     (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 1999 at the 688th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Cable and others case delivered on 18 February 1999 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in thirty-five applications (Nos. 24436/94, 24582/94, 24583/94, 24584/94, 24895/94, 25937/94, 25939/94, 25940/94, 25941/94, 26271/95, 26525/95, 27341/95, 27342/95, 27346/95, 27357/95, 27389/95, 27409/95, 27760/95, 27762/95, 27772/95, 28009/95, 28790/95, 30236/96, 30239/96, 30276/96, 30277/96, 30460/96, 30461/96, 30462/96, 31399/96, 31400/96, 31434/96, 31899/96, 32024/96 and 32944/96) against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights between June 1994 and September 1996 under Article 25 of the Convention by thirty-five British nationals, namely, Mr Nicholas Robert Cable, Mr   Peter   Mowbray Elliott, Mr Serge Clency Poinen, Mr Mark Partoon, Mr Scott Birnie, Mr   Simon   Pascoe, Mr Michael Donald Jarrett, Mr Nigel David Frame, Mr Roger Michael Smith, Mr   Stephen Edward Battle, Mr Paul Andrew Hunt, Mr Michael Billing, Ms Debra Hiley, Mr   Simon   Barron, Mr Christopher Rodgers, Mr James McDaid, Mr Hugh Campbell, Mr   William   Russell   Young, Mr Derek Finch, Mr Nigel David Gooch, Mr Marcus Paul Smart, Mr   Jason   Lee Roberts, Mr Gareth Edward Smith, Mr Shane Evans, Mr Nicholas John Potter, Mr   Anthony   Boullemier, Mr Steven Douglas Graham, Mr David Ledger, Mr Paul Wardle, Mr   David   Glen   Lewis, Mr Andrew James Wilson, Mr Edward Curran, Mr Tony Bruce, Mr   Francisco   Javier Nash and Ms Morag Ann Powell, and that the Commission declared admissible their complaints concerning the independence and impartiality of a court martial set up either under the Air Force Act 1955 or the Army Act 1955;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the government of the respondent state on 14 August 1998;   Whereas in its judgment of 18 February 1999 the Court: - held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of each of the thirty-five applicants; - held, by sixteen votes to one, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants;   - held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses, a global sum of 40   000 pounds sterling, together with any value-added tax which may be chargeable, less 19   200 French francs, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment; and that simple interest at an annual rate of 7.5% should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement; - dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of previous Article   54 of the Convention which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 18 February 1999, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   53 of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as those found in this case, notably through the entry into force on 1 April 1997 of the Armed Forces Act 1996 which amended the relevant provisions of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 (see Resolution DH (98) 11 in the Findlay case and Resolution DH (98) 12 in the Coyne case), and indicated that the Court's judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 4 May 1999, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of 18 February 1999,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.