CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 20 mars 1987

.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 32 (art. 32) of the 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 applications lodged by Mr Edward Byrne, Mr Cornelius McFadden, Mr John McCluskey and Mr Liam McLarnon against the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 7879/77, 7931/77, 7935/77 and 7936/77);   Whereas on 28 January 1986 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 their applications lodged between 1 April and 23 May 1977 the applicants complained of a hindrance of their right of access to court, contrary to Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention, and of an unjustified interference with their right to respect for private life, ensured by Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention, the first applicant also complaining of an unjustified interference with his right to respect for correspondence, ensured by Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible on 6 March 1985 and, after having decided on 12 October 1985 to join them, in its report adopted on 3 December 1985 expressed the opinion by a unanimous vote, that the interference with the first applicant's correspondence to his solicitors constituted a breach of Articles 8 and 6, paragraph 1 (art. 8, art. 6-1), of the convention, by a vote of twelve to one that no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention arose from the refusal to allow the first applicant facilities for an independent medical examination, and, by a unanimous vote, that the prevention of the applicants' confidential consultations with their solicitors was in breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Having examined the proposals made by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 3 (art. 31-3), of the convention;   Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers:   i. that it accepted the opinion expressed by the Commission in its report, as well as the proposals made under Article 31, paragraph 3 (art. 31-3), of the convention,   ii. that following the decision of the Divisional Court in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson (1984) 1ALL ER920, the simultaneous ventilation rule was disapplied from correspondence with legal advisers in relation to proposed legal proceedings,   iii. that the revised Standing Order No. 5 provided that visits with a legal adviser acting in his professional capacity should be allowed out of hearing of prison officers provided that the subject to be discussed was disclosed to the Governor beforehand,   iv. that, however, following the decision in Anderson's case, it was now no longer necessary that the subject to be discussed be disclosed in advance,   v. that the sum of £4 322.50 for the applicants' legal costs was paid to the applicants' legal representatives;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention,   a.       Decides that:   i. the interference with the first applicant's correspondence to his solicitors constituted a breach of Articles 8 and 6, paragraph 1 (art. 8, art. 6-1), of the convention;   ii. no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention arose from the refusal to allow the first applicant facilities for an independent medical examination;   iii. the prevention of the applicants' confidential consultations with solicitors was in breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;   b.       Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for in this case.