I can't get no satisfaction...just or otherwise

I can't get no satisfaction...just or otherwise

90. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

91. The applicant claimed 5,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for suffering and distress caused by the violation.

92. The Government were of the view that any finding of a violation should in itself constitute just satisfaction for the applicant. If alternatively the Court were to make an award, it considered the amount should not be more than GBP 1,000.

93. The Chamber found as follows (see paragraph 60 of the Chamber judgment):

“The Court has considered below the applicant’s claims for his own costs in the proceedings. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court notes that it will be for the United Kingdom Government in due course to implement such measures as it considers appropriate to fulfil its obligations to secure the right to vote in compliance with this judgment. In the circumstances, it considers that this may be regarded as providing the applicant with just satisfaction for the breach in this case.”

94. Like the Chamber, the Court does not award any monetary compensation under this head.

In my view, I believe that the ECtHR should have awarded me monetary compensation of at least £1,000. Even the government accepted that this would be the appropriate amount in damages. The Court found that there had been a violation. The internal law of the UK as it stood at the time of my case and as it stands now does not allow any reparation to be made, let alone only partial reparation to be made, therefore the Court should have then and even now should award me just satisfaction.

How long is a piece of string? Given "the Court notes that it will be for the United Kingdom Government in due course to implement such measures as it considers appropriate to fulfil its obligations to secure the right to vote in compliance with this judgment", surely undue delay does not constitute due course? The UK has deliberately strung this out.

The UK has failed to implement any measures to fulfil its obligations to secure the right to vote to all convicted prisoners.

The UK has embarked upon a course which is not due to ignore fully complying with the judgment in my case.

PRACTICE DIRECTION
JUST SATISFACTION CLAIMS

According to Lord Woolf: “Where an infringement of an individual's human rights has occurred, the concern will usually be to bring the infringement to an end and any question of compensation will be of secondary, if any, importance”(para 53).

According to Lord Bingham: “The primary aim of the European Convention was to promote uniform protection of certain fundamental human rights among the member states of the Council of Europe...The expectation therefore is, and has always been, that a member state found to have violated the Convention will act promptly to prevent a repetition of the violation, and in this way the primary object of the Convention is served”(paras 3 and 5).

Clearly my legitimate expectation has not been met, the UK has not acted promptly and as a result there has been a repetition of the violation.