Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)223 Redfearn împotriva Regatului Unit Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Cerere Cauza Hotărârea Determinativului 47335/06 RENDEARN 06/11/2012 06/02/2013 (adoptată de Comitetul miniștrilor la 6 noiembrie 2013 în cadrul celei de-a 1183-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă transmisă de Curte Comitetului în această cauză și încălcarea constatată reamintind obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației respective După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii și notarea faptului că a fost acordată o satisfacție echitabilă de către Curte în prezenta cauză (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)1084 [1] SÕ asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL pe care l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action report Redfearn v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 47335/06; judgment final on 06/02/2013) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 4 October 2013 (numai în limba engleză) Căsuța summary Case description: The aplicant, born in 1948, was dismissed by his utiliza in June 2004 on health and safety grounds following his selection as a British National Party Councillor. As the applicant had only been working for his utilization for less than a year, he was unable to bring a case of unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal: at that time, under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an individual needed to have been continuuously angajated for a period of one year before they could bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered that a claim for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 is an applicate remedy for a person, like the aplicant, dismissed on account of his political beliefs or afilieri. The ECTHR also observad that, in view of the margin of approciation afforded to States in formulating and implementing social and economic policies, a one-year qualifying period is in principle both reasonable and applicate. However, it noted that the one-year qualifying period did not applicacy equaly to all dismissed as rasa, sex and religie. There was no such protection for employes dismissed on account of political opinie or afiliere. The ECTHR prin urmare held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights through the UK Government failing to protect employees with lesss than the (then) one year a service from dismissal on grounds of political avizs or afiliation. The Equalities Act 2010 did not and does not provide a remedy to protect political belief. În această legislație, este vorba despre o protecție characteristică, dar în acest context este vorba despre o înțelegere și filosofică și nu despre o cover political beliefs. The ECTHR considered that it was incumbent on the UK Government Individual measures Satisfacție echitabilă: The applicant made no claim for damages as part of just satisfaction and so no amount was awarded. Individual measures: In order to put Mr Redfearn in the position in which would have been had there been no violation, the UK would have to make a retrospective amendment to the privilegiation (i.e. general measure described below would have to have been made retrospective to cover dismissals on or after 30 June 2004, which was the data of Mr. Redfearn Regatul Unit consideră că a breach of that principle in this case, which would impact on nine years of angajation-officee relationships and dismissals in the UK, would not be fair or proporate. The government considers that, in the circumstances, no further individual Measures are. General Measures General Measures: As part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the government amended Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to create a further exception to the qualifying period so as to scute thes individuals claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of political avizs or afilie from the (now) two year qualifying period of employment. The provision came into force on 25 June 2013 and can be found in section 13 of the Enterprise and Regulamenty Reform Act 2013: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpgao.2013/24/contents/enacted Acest lucru va prevânta any similarar încălcări in the viitor, any any angajat who believes that they were dismissed on the grounds of political opinie or afiliation will be able to ring a claim in the Employment Tribunal nerespective of how long they have worked for their utilization. Publication: The judgment has been publicshed in: Redfearn v United Kingdom (2013) I.R.R. 51 Redfearn v United Kingdom (2013) 57 E.H.R. 2 Redfearn v United Kingdom 33 B.H.R.C. Disemination: The government considers it unnecessary to diseminate the judgment ciocause the legislation has already been changed (see above). State of execution of judgment: The government considers that allcessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed. [1] Numai limba engleză.
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)223
Redfearn contre Royaume-Uni
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Requête
Affaire
Arrêt du
Définitif le
47335/06
06/11/2012
06/02/2013
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 novembre 2013,
lors de la 1183e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «
la Convention
» et «
la Cour
»),
Vu l’arrêt définitif transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire et la violation constatée
;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe
1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire
:
-
de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par
restitutio in integrum
;
et
-
de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables
;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée
;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document
[1]
)
;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action report
Redfearn v. the United Kingdom
(Application No. 47335/06; judgment final on 06/02/2013)
Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 4 October 2013
(anglais uniquement)
Case summary
1.
Case description:
The applicant, born in 1948, was dismissed by his employer in June 2004 on health and safety grounds following his election as a British National Party Councillor. As the applicant had only been working for his employer for less than a year, he was unable to bring a case of unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal: at that time, under Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an individual needed to have been continuously employed for a period of one year before they could bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered that a claim for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 is an appropriate remedy for a person, like the applicant, dismissed on account of his political beliefs or affiliations. The ECtHR also observed that, in view of the margin of appreciation afforded to States in formulating and implementing social and economic policies, a one-year qualifying period is in principle both reasonable and appropriate. However, it noted that the one-year qualifying period did not apply equally to all dismissed employees and that a number of exceptions were created to offer additional protection to employees dismissed on certain prohibited grounds such as race, sex and religion. There was no such protection for employees dismissed on account of political opinion or affiliation.
The ECtHR therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights through the UK Government failing to protect employees with less than the (then) one year’s service from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation. The Equalities Act 2010 did not and does not provide a remedy to protect political belief. In this legislation, “Religion or belief” is a protected characteristic but “belief” in that context covers religious and philosophical beliefs and does not cover political beliefs.
The ECtHR considered that it was incumbent on the UK Government “to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect employees, including those with less than one year’s service, from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation, either through the creation of a further exception to the one-year qualifying period or through a free-standing claim for unlawful discrimination on grounds of political opinion or affiliation.”
Individual measures
2.
Just satisfaction:
The applicant made no claim for damages as part of just satisfaction and so no amount was awarded.
3.
Individual measures:
In order to put Mr Redfearn in the position in which he would have been had there been no violation, the UK would have to make a retrospective amendment to the relevant legislation (i.e. the general measure described below would have to have been made retrospective to cover dismissals on or after 30 June 2004, which was the date of Mr Redfearn’s dismissal) and provide for extensions to limitation periods for claims. Retrospective law is contrary to the general principle that legislation should be prospective. The UK considers that a breach of that principle in this case, which would impact on nine years of employer-employee relationships and dismissals in the UK, would not be fair or proportionate.
The government considers that, in the circumstances, no further individual measures are possible.
General measures
4.
General measures:
As part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the government amended Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to create a further exception to the qualifying period so as to exempt those individuals claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation from the (now) two year qualifying period of employment. The relevant provision came into force on 25 June 2013 and can be found in Section 13 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/contents/enacted
This measure will prevent any similar violations in the future, as any employee who believes that they were dismissed on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation will be able to bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal irrespective of how long they have worked for their employer.
5.
Publication:
The judgment has been published in:
Redfearn v United Kingdom (2013) I.R.L.R. 51
Redfearn v United Kingdom (2013) 57 E.H.R.R. 2
Redfearn v United Kingdom 33 B.H.R.C.
6.
Dissemination:
The government considers it unnecessary to disseminate the judgment because the legislation has already been changed (see above).
7.
State of execution of judgment:
The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.
[1]
Anglais uniquement.