Mr. John D. TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the United Kingdom's EU partners about a common approach to revising procedures following the European Court of Human Rights verdict on the killing of IRA terrorists in Gibraltar; what plans he has to propose an amendment to article 2.2 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in relation to the phrase
the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessaryto take account of the verdict; and if he will make a statement. [38019]
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorThe Government are deeply concerned by the conclusion reached by the European Court of Human Rights in the Gibraltar case and are considering the implications of the court's judgment. When we have come to conclusions, we shall make our views known within the Council of Europe as the European Court of Human Rights is an institution of the Council of Europe and not of the European Union. Consultation with others is an option that we may wish to pursue.
As regards article 2 of the European convention on human rights, the court did not find a violation in relation to compatibility of the national law on the use of lethal force with article 2 standards.
The court unanimously rejected most the applicants' claims. It refused to award compensation—on the grounds that those killed were terrorists planning to plant a bomb. The sole point on which the court found against the United Kingdom was over the control and organisation of the operation. The majority of 10 judges thereby overturned the opinion of the European Commission of 60W Human Rights which, after conducting its own fact-finding exercise, found in September last year that the Government had not violated the European convention on human rights. The judges also contradicted the conclusion on the lengthy 1988 inquest which, after interviewing 79 witnesses, decided that what had happened was lawful.
The judgment of the majority, based on no new evidence and defying common sense, has done nothing for the standing of the court in the United Kingdom.
The dissenting minority of nine, which included some of the most senior judges on the court including its President, disagreed entirely with the majority's findings on the one contentious issue. These they demolished point by point in a lengthy and well-argued joint dissenting opinion.
§ Mr. Robert McCartneyTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which cases at(a) the European Commission and (b) the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg costs have been awarded against the United Kingdom Government and how much was paid in each instance; if he will indicate the cases where costs have not been awarded despite a finding against the United Kingdom; and if he will specify the subject matter of each case. [39915]
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorIn the past two years the Government have been ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay costs to successful applicants in the following cases:
£ Darnell 3,207 Boner and Maxwell 5,560 Welch 15,010 Tolstoy 91,516 McCann, Farrell and Savage 33,804 The amounts awarded have been paid, save for the recent case of McCann. In one case, McMichael, the successful applicants were not awarded costs because they claimed none.
I shall write to the hon. and learned Member detailing the costs awarded by the court in judgments given between 1975 and 1993.
I shall also write separately detailing costs awarded by the Committee of Ministers over the last two years in United Kingdom cases not referred to the court by the commission. To go back further would involve disproportionate costs.
§ Mr. McCartneyTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government intend to pay the costs awarded against them by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the deaths of Farrell, Savage and McCann in Gibraltar. [39916]
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorThe matter of the payment of costs will be considered in the normal way.
§ Mr. McCartneyTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the numbers of cases at the European Court of Human Rights, by signatory state, which those states have lost; and if he 61W will indicate for each such state the date from which its citizens were enabled to bring cases individually. [39917]
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorThe following is the information requested, correct as at 6 October 1995.
ECHR: comparative table of violations State party Cases where at least one violation found (At 6 October1995) Date of acceptance of article 25 Austria 28 3 September 1958 Belgium 20 5 July 1955 Bulgaria 0 7 September 1992 Cyprus 1 1 January 1989 Czech Republic 0 — Denmark 2 13 April 1953 Finland 2 10 May 1990 France 33 2 October 1981 Germany 12 5 July 1955 Greece 7 20 November 1985 Hungary 0 5 November 1992 Iceland 2 29 March 1955 Ireland 6 25 February 1953 Italy 84 1 August 1973 Liechtenstein 0 8 September 1982 Luxembourg 1 28 April 1958 Malta 1 1 May 1987 Netherlands 23 28 June 1960 Norway 1 10 December 1955 Poland 0 1 May 1993 Portugal 6 9 November 1978 Romania 0 20 June 1994 San Marino 0 22 March 1989 Slovakia 0 — Slovenia 0 20 June 1994 Spain 7 1 July 1981 Sweden 21 4 February 1952 Switzerland 14 28 November 1974 Turkey 2 28 January 1987 United Kingdom 37 14 January 1966 No case for the member states parties has yet reached the court.