CASE OF WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (ARTICLE 50)
Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed
John Freeland;R. Pekkanen
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 15 January 1994 within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 17440/90) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a British citizen, Mr Peter Welch, on 22 June 1990. 2. In a judgment of 9 February 1995 ("the principal judgment", Series A no. 307-A), the Court found that the confiscation order of 24 August 1988 made against the applicant following his conviction for drugs offences amounted to the retrospective imposition of a penalty in breach of Article 7 para. 1 (art. 7-1) of the Convention (ibid., pp. 11-15, paras. 22-36, and point 1 of the operative provisions). The Court also held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, £13,852.60, less the sums paid by way of legal aid, in respect of costs and expenses (ibid., p. 15, paras. 40-41, and point 2 of the operative provisions). 3. As the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) was not ready for decision in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit in writing, within three months, their observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., p. 15, para. 39, and point 3 of the operative provisions). 4. The negotiations for an agreement having proved unsuccessful, the Registrar received memorials from the Government and the applicant on 4 and 5 May 1995 respectively concerning the question of damage. 5. In accordance with an order of the President of 16 May 1995, comments on the claims made by the applicant were submitted by the Government on 18 July. The applicant replied to these submissions on 18 September. On 20 October a further comment was received from the Government. 6. On 6 November 1995 the Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate had no observations to make as regards the above submissions. 7. Mr R. Pekkanen, who was unable to take further part in the case, was subsequently replaced by Mr F. Gölcüklü (Rule 22 para. 1 of Rules of Court A).