A.D.T. v the United Kingdom - 35765/97 [2010] ECHR 1892 (15 September 2010)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

(Application No. 35765/97, judgment of 31/07/2000, rectified on 24/10/2000, final on 31/10/2000)

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 Court found in this case a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life as a result of the prohibition by law of homosexual acts between several consenting men in private and the conviction of the applicant for gross indecency in respect of such acts which had taken place in private, at the applicant’s home (violation of article 8 of the Convention) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to 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 the respondent state paid the applicant 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

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 897th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (12 October 2004), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life as a result of his conviction in 1996 for gross indecency on account of homosexual acts between more than two consenting male adults which had taken place in private, at the applicant’s home. He was sentenced, under the law applicable at the time, to two years’ imprisonment and conditionally discharged. His house was searched and certain items were seized and destroyed (violation of article 8 of the Convention).

The European Court accepted the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and awarded him a sum covering, inter alia, the value of the items confiscated and destroyed as a result of the search made at the applicant’s home.

The applicant was conditionally discharged on 20/11/1996 and his representative indicated in 2003 that they did not wish to pursue the issue of possible further individual measures. Furthermore, since the entry into force in 2004 of new legislation (see General Measures below), persons convicted under the same circumstances, may request the removal of restrictions attached to this type of conviction.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

New legislation (Sexual Offences Act 2003) came into force on 1 May 2004. This Act repealed entirely the provisions at the origin of the applicant’s conviction in this case, i.e. sections 12 (buggery offence) and 13 (gross indecency) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, as well as section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which provided that a homosexual act “in private” shall not be an offence, except when more than two persons took part. The new law operates around the concept of consent and there are no specific offences for any homosexual activity in private between consenting adults.

In addition, persons subject to the obligation to notify certain information to the police (under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, which was subsequently replaced by the Sex Offenders Act 2003) as a result of a conviction, finding or caution in respect of the provisions at issue in the present case can henceforth apply to the Secretary of State to cease to be subject to these requirements. This also applies to persons convicted before the new Act came into force.

The judgment of the European Court was published at (2001)31 EHRR 803 and has received wide coverage in the press.

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 have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Damages	Costs and expenses	Total
20 929.05 GBP	13 771.28 GBP	34 700.33 GBP
Paid

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> A.D.T. v the United Kingdom - 35765/97 [2010] ECHR 1892 (15 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1892.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1892