European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> R.K. and A.K. v the United Kingdom - 38000/05 [2010] ECHR 577 (4 March 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/577.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 577

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)25^¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

R.K. and A.K. against the United Kingdom

(Application No. 38000/05, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 30/12/2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of an effective remedy (violation of article 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)25

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

R.K. and A.K. against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the lack of an effective domestic remedy whereby the applicants might establish a local authority’s responsibility for damage suffered and obtain compensation (violation of Article 13).

The applicants claimed that the local authority had violated their rights under Article 8 by taking their daughter into short-term, state care. As the incident in question had occurred before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force (on 02/10/2000) the applicants could not bring a claim against the local authority for the alleged violation.

The European Court found no violation of Article 8 but found a violation of Article 13, stating that the applicants “should have had available to them a means of claiming that the local authority’s handling of the procedures was responsible for any damage ... and obtaining compensation for that damage” (§ 45)

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	EUR 10,000	EUR 18,000	EUR 28,000
Paid on 25/03/2009

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants’ daughter was returned to them before the national proceedings began.

II. General measures

This case presents similarities to that of Bubbins against the United Kingdom which has been closed by the Committee of Ministers (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)101). Following the entry into force on 02/10/2000 of the Human Rights Act 1998, a person in the situation of the applicants could bring a claim against a local authority under section 7 of that Act (that is to say, section 7(1) taken together with sections 7(7) and 6 (1)) in respect of an alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Such proceedings would provide a forum in which a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damages in respect of any civil liability of the local authority could be assessed.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.