Brogan and others v United Kingdom [1989] ECHR 9

Four British citizens detained under anti-terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland claimed compensation following the European Court's earlier finding that their detention violated Article 5(3) and 5(5) of the Convention. The Court held that the finding of violations in the principal judgment itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction.

Facts

This case concerned four British citizens – Terence Brogan, Dermot Coyle, William McFadden, and Michael Tracey – who had lodged applications with the European Commission of Human Rights between October 1984 and February 1985. The case came before the European Court of Human Rights following a principal judgment delivered on 29 November 1988, which had found violations of the Convention regarding their detention.

Previous Findings

In the principal judgment, the Court had determined:

• No violation of Article 5(1) – the detention was based on reasonable suspicion and effected for the purpose of bringing them before competent legal authority
• Violation of Article 5(3) – the applicants had not been brought promptly before a judge or other authorised officer
• No violation of Article 5(4) – applicants had been entitled to take appropriate proceedings
• Violation of Article 5(5) – applicants had no enforceable claim for compensation before domestic courts for the breach of Article 5(3)

Issues

The principal issue before the Court in this Article 50 judgment was whether the applicants were entitled to compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the violations found in the principal judgment. The applicants had claimed exemplary damages calculated at approximately £2,000 for each hour of wrongful detention.

Government’s Position

The Government submitted that the compensation claim was addressed not to the breaches of Article 5(3) and 5(5) found in the principal judgment, but rather to the allegation of breach of Article 5(1), which the Court had not upheld.

Judgment

The Court unanimously held that the principal judgment in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50. The Court stated:

“As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court does not exclude that the applicants may have sustained some prejudice of this kind as a result of the breaches of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case and in particular the reasons leading to the decision recorded in paragraph 2 (a) above, it considers that even in that event the finding in the principal judgment of violations of Article 5 in itself constitutes, as was suggested by the Delegate of the Commission, sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50.”

Regarding costs and expenses, the Court declined to entertain the applicants’ claim, noting that the principal judgment had already determined there was no call to examine the application of Article 50 in relation to reimbursement of costs or expenses, as the applicants had not submitted any claim in this respect at the appropriate time. That decision being final under Article 52 of the Convention, the Court could not entertain the subsequent claim.

Implications

This judgment demonstrates that the European Court of Human Rights may determine that a finding of violation itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction without awarding monetary compensation, particularly where the violation relates to procedural rather than substantive rights under Article 5. The case also confirms the importance of timely submission of claims for costs and expenses, as the Court will not consider such claims if not properly raised during the main proceedings.

Verdict: The Court unanimously held that the principal judgment in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50, declining to award monetary compensation to the applicants.

Source: Brogan v United Kingdom [1989] ECHR 9