CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Resolution ResDH(2003)128 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 22 October 2002 (final on 22 January 2003) in the case of Beck, Copp and Bazeley against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 July 2003 at the 847th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Beck,   Copp   and   Bazeley delivered on 22 October 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in three applications (Nos. 48535/99, 48536/99 and 48537/99) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11, 12 and 11 January 1999 respectively under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr John Beck, Mr Howard Copp and Mr Kevin Bazeley, three British nationals, and that the Court declared admissible the complaints related to a discriminatory breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life on account of investigations concerning their homosexuality and their subsequent dismissal from the Royal Air Force (Mr Beck and Mr   Bazeley) and the Royal Army Medical Corps (Mr Copp) in accordance with the policy, in force at the time, banning homosexuals from serving in the armed forces and to the lack of effective remedy in domestic law in this respect;   Whereas in its judgment of 22 October 2002 the Court unanimously:   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;   -   held that no separate issue arose under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8;   -   held that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention taken either alone or in conjunction with Article 14;   -   held that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taken either alone or in conjunction with Article 14;   -   held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the first applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, the following amounts to be converted to pounds sterling at the date of settlement: 30 300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 131 400 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, 783 euros in respect of costs and expenses of the domestic proceedings and 5 600 euros in respect of costs and expenses of the Convention proceedings and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the second applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, the following amounts to be converted to pounds sterling at the date of settlement: 30 300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 87 300 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, 1 444 euros in respect of costs and expenses of the domestic proceedings and 6 100 euros in respect of costs and expenses of the Convention proceedings and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the third applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, the following amounts to be converted to pounds sterling at the date of settlement: 30 300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 145 100 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, 1 632 euros in respect of costs and expenses of the domestic proceedings and 7 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses of the Convention proceedings and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   -   dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 22 October 2002, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, 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, in particular through the introduction of The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct Policy Statement lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the military (see Resolutions ResDH(2002)34 in the case of Lustig-Pream and Beckett and ResDH(2002)35 in the case of Smith and Grady), and indicated that the European Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on 8 April 2003 the applicants’ lawyer confirmed that, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 22   October   2002,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.