Implementation of Strasbourg Judgments and Declarations of Incompatibility

The Committee is continuing its practice of reviewing the UK's implementation of adverse human rights judgments. The Committee published its 31st Report of Session 2007-08 ' Monitoring the Government's Response to Human Rights Judgements': Annual Report 2008', on 31 October 2008, to which the Government replied in January 2009. []

Since the Committee's last Annual Report, it has written to the Government to ask for information in relation to the implementation of several new judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), a number of matters relating to the implementation of Strasbourg judgments more generally, and declarations of incompatibility by the UK Courts.

The Committee will be taking oral evidence from the Human Rights Minister, Rt Hon Michael Wills MP, on 27 October 2009 and proposes to publish its Annual Report on human rights judgments shortly afterwards. In advance of the oral evidence session, the Committee has written to the Justice Secretary requesting:

€ Comments or information on the Government's general work on adverse human rights judgments, either from the European Court of Human Rights or the domestic courts, since June 2008, including any steps which the UK Government have taken to meet the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (CM (2008) 2), adopted in February 2008;

€ Submissions on progress in respect of any of the cases considered in the Committee's last Report, including any updated information provided to the Committee of Ministers;

€ A brief report on all adverse human rights judgments, either from the European Court of Human Rights or in respect of declarations of incompatibility, since June 2008, following the model adopted in the Netherlands and in line with the Committee's recommendations in its last Annual Report, including:

  • the Government's reaction to the case and any work planned to provide a response to the judgment;
  • if no remedial order is planned, an explanation as to why the Government considers a remedial order not to be necessary;
  • if the Government intends to bring forward a remedial order, an explanation as to whether the urgent procedure will be used, and if not, why not.

The Committee is actively seeking to encourage more input from civil society into its human rights judgments work. The Committee would welcome submissions from outside individuals or organisations in relation to any of the above issues or the cases listed below. Submissions of no more than 2,500 words are requested by 30 September 2009.

Submissions should be addressed to Dr Mark Egan, Commons Clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA (email: [email protected]). Electronic submission in Word format is requested, but a signed hard copy should also be sent.

Evidence becomes the property of the Committee, and may be printed, placed on the Internet or circulated by the Committee at any stage. You may publicise or publish your evidence yourself, but in doing so you must indicate that it was prepared for the Committee. Evidence published other than under the authority of the Committee does not attract parliamentary privilege.

Links to correspondence between the Committee and the Government on specific ECtHR and domestic cases are set out below.

Corespondence on specific cases: ECtHR

( Connors v UK) - Security of tenure for gypsies and travellers

( Marper v UK) - Retention of DNA profiles and cellular samples

( Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK) - Iraqi civilians, accused of the murder of two members of the UK Armed Forces, delivered into the custody of the Iraqi High Tribunal and under threat of the death penalty

( McCann v UK) - Possession proceedings

( Liberty v UK) - Interception of communications

( Bullen and Soneji v UK) - Length of proceedings

( A v UK) - Detention of foreign terror suspects

( RK and AK v UK) - Care proceedings

( Hirst (No. 2) v UK) - Prisoner voting rights

(Szuluk v UK) - Prisoners' correspondence with medical practitioners

Correspondence on specific cases: domestic

( R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health) - Suitability of care workers to work with vulnerable adults

( R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) - Marriage of persons subject to immigration control