HL Deb 26 January 2004 vol 656 cc3-4WA
Lord Laird

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Which cases they have lost in the European Court of Human Rights since a right of appeal was permitted; which cases have been appealed; and whether they will consider a policy of settling more cases out of court. [HL733]

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights (as amended by Protocol 11) allows any party to a case in which there has been a judgment of a Chamber of the Court, in exceptional circumstances, to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

Since the entry into force of Protocol 11 on 1 November 1998, the Grand Chamber has issued judgments in two cases to which the United Kingdom was a party following a request by the Government under Article 43 (Hatton v United Kingdom and Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom) and in one case following a request by the applicant (Kingsley v United Kingdom). The Grand Chamber found there to have been violations of the Convention in Kingsley and Ezeh and Connors; in Hatton it found a violation of Article 13 but no violation of Article 8. There is one further case to which the United Kingdom is a party pending before the Grand Chamber following a request by the Government under Article 43 (Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom). In addition to referrals under Article 43 and cases considered under transitional arrangements provided for in Protocol 11, the Grand Chamber has issued judgments in seven cases to which the United Kingdom was a party in which jurisdiction was relinquished by a Chamber of the Court under Article 30 of the Convention.

The Government consider the possibility of settling applications brought against them in the European Court of Human Rights on a case-by-case basis and against the background of the Lord Chancellor's announcement of March 2001 concerning the Government's pledge to consider and use alternative dispute resolution in all suitable cases wherever the other party accepts it. The pledge acknowledges that there will be disputes where, for example, a legal precedent is needed to clarify the law, or where it would be contrary to the public interest to settle.