CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 9 juin 1994

.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 }                                  RESOLUTION DH (79) 3   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the European 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 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged by Mr Arthur Hilton against the United Kingdom (Application No. 5613/72);   Whereas on 9 June 1978 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 (art. 32-1) of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas in his application introduced on 4 May 1972 the applicant complained that he was ill-treated by prison staff during his detention in prison, thus alleging ill-treatment amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention, of obstruction by the Home Office on two occasions to allow him to instruct a solicitor contrary to his right of access to courts in the determination of his civil rights ensured by Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 21 February 1975 in the Golder case, of unjustified censorhsip of his correspondence contrary to his right to respect for correspondence as guaranteed by Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission in its decision of 15 March 1976 declared the application admissible insofar as it concerned complaints under Articles 3, 6 and 8 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 8) and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible as being immaterial to the allegations made;   Whereas by decision of 8 July 1977, the Commission adjourned its examination of the applicant's allegations concerning censorship of his letters until conclusions could be drawn from seven applications against the United Kingdom presently before the Commission concerning censorship of prisoners' letters;   Whereas the Commission in its report adopted on 6 March 1978 expressed the opinion by 10 votes to 4 that no breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention was disclosed in respect of the applicant's allegations of specific incidents of ill-treatment and, unanimously, that in his denials of authorisation to institute proceedings, the Home Secretary failed to respect the applicant's right to go before a civil court and that therefore the facts of the complaints disclose a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;   Whereas during the examination of this case, the Committee of Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it agreed with these conclusions but not with all the contents of the Commission's report; and furthermore that, whilst accepting that in this case there was a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in the Golder case, it considered that no measure was required within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 32 (art. 32-2) since the complaint made by Mr Hilton arose before the judgment of the Court in the Golder case and the points of principle raised by this application had already been met by the change made in the law of the United Kingdom, as shown by Resolution (76) 35 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 June 1976 in application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in the Golder case, and in Resolution DH (78) 3 adopted on 19 April 1978 in application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in the case of Kiss against the United Kingdom, and that reparation had been offered by the United Kingdom to the applicant and rejected by him;   Agreeing, subject to the foregoing, with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention,   a.   Decides that in this case there has been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention;   b.   Decides that in this case there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;   c.   Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for in this case.                              *              *                                   *                        RESOLUTION DH (94) 35     The Committee of Ministers,   Whereas the Committee decided to terminate its examination of the Hilton case by Resolution DH (79) 3 and the Kiss case by Resolution DH (78) 3;   Having regard to the request formulated by the Government of the United Kingdom on 18 April 1994 to have the reports adopted by the European Commission of Human Rights on 8 October 1977 in the case of Kiss against the United Kingdom (Application No. 6224/73) and on 6 March 1978 in the case of Hilton against the United Kingdom (Application No. 5613/72) made public,   Decides to make public the above-mentioned reports of the Commission.