CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199 August-September 2016 C.P. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 300/11 Decision 6.9.2016 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Complaint that national courts had failed to recognise that a pupil’s temporary suspension from school in breach of his procedural rights under domestic law also constituted a violation of his rights under Article   2 of Protocol No.   1: inadmissible Facts – The applicant, a minor, was suspended from school, purportedly as a precautionary measure, following complaints about his conduct by another pupil. The suspension lasted for about three months. The applicant was given tuition at home during part of that period. In proceedings for judicial review of the decision to suspend him, the Supreme Court held that the suspension was unlawful under domestic law as the applicant had not been given an opportunity to put forward his version of events and no reasons had been given for the suspension. It declined, however, to find a breach of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, finding that the applicant had not been denied effective access to the educational facilities available to pupils who were suspended from school. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): The Court accepted the Government’s submission that the principal “disadvantage” suffered by the applicant was the lack of a finding by the national courts that the same failings which had rendered his temporary exclusion from school unlawful under domestic law also constituted a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1. It found that, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant could not be said to have suffered a “significant disadvantage” in the sense of important adverse consequences. Firstly, there did not appear to have been any evidence to suggest that he had sustained any actual prejudice as a result of his unlawful suspension. Secondly, since the failings impugned by the applicant were essentially of a procedural nature, were the Court to declare the application admissible and find a violation, it would not be able speculate whether the outcome would have been different and less detrimental to the applicant had a procedure embodying adequate safeguards protecting his right to education been followed. Any prejudice sustained by the applicant regarding his right to education in substantive terms was thus speculative. The Court further observed that, subsequent to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the applicant’s case, it had given appropriate guidance on the issue of the scope of Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 in a judgment specifically concerning the United Kingdom.* Thus, the general interpretative problem raised in the applicant’s case had been resolved and could not constitute a compelling reason to warrant an examination on the merits. Lastly, since the applicant’s legal challenge of his suspension from school had been examined by the national courts at three levels of jurisdiction (including by the Supreme Court which had considered in substance the same subject-matter of complaint as that raised in the present application) the case had been “duly considered by a domestic tribunal”. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage). *   Ali v. the United Kingdom , 40385/06, 11   January 2011, Information Note   137 .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes