CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEE18EE45 { width:48.95pt; display:inline-block } .sD246B30D { width:200.98pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10471/05 by Samantha Jane BLAKEMORE and 41 Others (see the attached table) against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   December   2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Casadevall , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the applications appended to the attached decisions, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having regard to the friendly settlement offer of the Government in respect of each of the applicants and its acceptance by all the applicants. Having deliberated, decides as follows:             THE FACTS The applicants are British nationals who live in the United Kingdom. They were represented before the Court by Tyndallwoods, a firm of solicitors based in Birmingham. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Willmott, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. Background facts The applicants were, at the material time, employed in the British armed forces. They were dismissed pursuant to the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces. Their individual circumstances are summarised in the attached table.   2. Domestic proceedings The applicants submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal arguing that their dismissal, and the treatment to which they had been subjected, breached the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”). As a result of the House of Lords’ judgment in MacDonald (AP) (Appellant) v. Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) dated 19 June 2003, the applicants withdrew their domestic proceedings.   B.     Relevant domestic and European law and practice The law and practice in force at the relevant time concerning the dismissal of homosexuals from the armed forces are described in the decision of the Court in the case of MacDonald v.   the United Kingdom (no. 301/04, 6 February 2007). COMPLAINTS 1. The applicants complained under Articles 3, 8 and 10, alone and in conjunction, with Article 14 of the Convention, about the investigation into their sexual orientation and about their subsequent dismissal from the armed forces pursuant to the absolute policy against homosexuals in those forces. 2. They also complained under Article 13 that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard. THE LAW On 20 December 2005 as well as 17 and 18 May 2006 the respondent Government were given notice of these applications and were requested to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the cases in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. In their submissions, dated 28 April 2006 and 27 September 2006, the Government informed the Court that they were willing, in principle, to pursue a friendly settlement of these applications and invited the applicants to submit information as to any damage sustained as a result of their dismissal. The applicants submitted their responses from June 2006 to March 2007 together with the relevant supporting documentation. Subsequently, the Government set out their formal proposals for a friendly settlement concerning each of the applicants in letters filed on various dates in June 2007: the Government, therein, addressed pecuniary loss (and, in particular, loss of earnings, service pension and service benefits and resettlement and terminal grants) as well as non-pecuniary loss and legal costs and expenses. They also dealt with the individual circumstances of each case and presented detailed offers of friendly settlement. By letters dated 10, 11, 12 or 17 July 2007 all the applicants informed the Court that they accepted the Government’s proposals in full and final settlement of their cases. The applicants whose cases are numbered 12 and 20 in the attached table indicated their acceptance of a revised offer of the Government on 29 August 2007 and 3 September 2007. The Court takes note of the settlement reached between the parties, the details of which are set out in the attached table. The Court also notes that it has specified in a number of cases the precise nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention as regards the investigation and dismissal of homosexuals from the British armed forces. It has further made awards for just satisfaction in those cases ( Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (just satisfaction), nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 25 July 2000 and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom (just satisfaction), nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ IX; Perkins and R. v. the United Kingdom , nos. 43208/98 and 44875/98, 22 October 2002; and Beck, Copp and Bazeley v. the United Kingdom , nos. 48535/99, 48536/99 and 48537/99, 22 October 2002). The Court has carefully examined the terms of the parties’ agreement. Having regard to the speed and nature of the Government’s reaction to the afore-mentioned lead judgments in Lustig-Prean and Beckett v.   the United Kingdom and Smith and Grady v.   the United Kingdom (notably through the introduction of The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct Policy Statement ), as well as to the settlement figures agreed by both parties, the Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds that, in the light of the Government’s admissions and undertakings, there is no reason to justify a continued examination of these applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; and Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.     T.L. Early   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President