European Court of Human Rights

The only outstanding matter to be settled is the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention in the present case. Accordingly, as regards the facts, reference should be made to paragraphs 10 to 31 of the principal judgment (ibid., pp. 10-19).

As the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) was therefore not ready for decision, the Court, in the principal judgment, reserved the whole of this question and invited the Government to submit their written comments within the next two months and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement reached between them and the applicant (paragraphs 71-72 of the reasons and point 3 of the operative provisions, pp. 33-34).

- on 5 May 1987, memorial of the Government;

- on 13 and 21 May 1987, memorials of the applicant.

In May 1987, at the applicant’s request, the President deferred consideration of the claims, pending the determination of further domestic proceedings brought by the applicant. Those proceedings having proved unsuccessful, he requested the Court, in a further memorial filed on 10 March 1988, to proceed with its examination of the matter. In accordance with the President’s direction, the Government filed a memorial on 22 April 1988.

These documents revealed that, save as hereinafter mentioned, no agreement had been concluded between the Government and the applicant.

On 25 March 1988, the Delegate of the Commission informed the Registrar that he would not be filing any memorial.

AS TO THE LAW

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

Under this provision, the applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, together with reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Convention institutions.

A. Costs and expenses

B. Damage

(i)  April 1975, when his release was first recommended by the Parole Board (see the principal judgment, p. 11, para. 16);

(ii) October 1977, when Judge Streeter at Maidstone Crown Court suggested that his liberty be restored to him (see the principal judgment, p. 12, para. 19);

(iii) May 1979, when his release was again recommended by the Parole Board (see the principal judgment, p. 13, para. 20).

Loss of earnings of between £35,000 and £45,000 approximately, calculated on the basis of the average industrial wage, was claimed from the above alternative dates up to 3 July 1985. The alleged loss also included two years’ loss of future earnings but excluded any period when Mr Weeks was actually at liberty or in detention pursuant to a court order. In support of this head of claim, Mr Weeks referred to his employment at the time of his arrest in 1977 and to the employment he obtained on his release in 1982.

(b) The applicant also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the absence of proceedings enabling him to challenge his detention under Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4). He submitted that the prison environment, the length of his periods in custody and the constant threat of re-detention had had adverse effects on his personal life and development. A periodic review under Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) would have been an incentive for him to improve his behaviour. In addition, he had been deprived of the opportunity to acquire professional skills and build up a good work-record. The amounts claimed under this heading - £58,750 or, alternatively, £48,750 for the periods from April 1975 or June 1977 to 3 July 1985 respectively - were based on payments of £10,000 per annum which have been made on an ex gratia basis by the Home Secretary to persons wrongly imprisoned in the United Kingdom.

(a) As regards pecuniary damage, the applicant had failed to prove that he would have been released earlier had he been entitled to take proceedings complying with Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4). Furthermore, the asserted loss related entirely to the fact of detention, which the Court had found in the principal judgment to have been lawful under the Convention. Accordingly, no causal link had been established between the alleged damage and the breach found by the Court.

(b) As regards non-pecuniary damage, the applicant had failed to prove any such loss capable of being attributed to the violation found. The Court was not entitled to make any presumption in this respect. Having regard, in particular, to the remission in April 1987 of the applicant’s life sentence (see paragraph 4 above), the finding of a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) constituted of itself sufficient just satisfaction under the circumstances.

Accordingly, no compensation is payable in respect of the harmful consequences attributable to the contested deprivation of liberty as such; for the purposes of an award of just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50), the only prejudice that may be taken into account is that caused by the lack of a remedy satisfying the requirements of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) (see the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 October 1982, Series A no. 55, p. 16, para. 17; the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 63, p. 6, para. 11; and the Luberti judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 18, para. 40).

The Court finds it impossible to state that the applicant would definitely have been released had such proceedings been available to him. On the other hand, it cannot be entirely excluded that he might have been released earlier and, in view of his age, might have obtained some practical benefit. Consequently, Mr Weeks may be said to have suffered a loss of opportunities by reason of the absence of such proceedings, even if in the light of the recurrence of his behavioural problems the prospect of his realising them fully was questionable (see the Bönisch judgment of 2 June 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 8, para. 11). The claim for pecuniary loss cannot therefore be completely discounted.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to strike the case out of the list as far as the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses is concerned;

2. Holds that the United Kingdom is to pay to the applicant the sum of £8,000 (eight thousand pounds) for damage;

3. Rejects the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 5 October 1988 pursuant to Rule 54 para. 2, second sub-paragraph, of the Rules of Court.

Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar