IV. On Article 50 (art. 50)

76. Under Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention, if the Court finds "that a decision or a measure taken" by any authority of a Contracting State "is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the... Convention, and if the internal law of the said [State] allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure", the Court "shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party".

The Rules of Court specify that when the Court "finds that there is a breach of the Convention, it shall give in the same judgment a decision on the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention if that question, after being raised under Rule 47 bis, is ready for decision; if the question is not ready for decision, the [Court] shall reserve it in whole or in part and shall fix the further procedure" (Rule 50 para. 3, first sentence, read in conjunction with Rule 48 para. 3).

77. In their memorial of 10 February 1978, the applicants request the Court to declare that the Government should pay to them a sum equivalent to the costs and expenses which they had incurred in connection with the contempt litigation in the English courts and the proceedings before the Commission and the Court. However, the applicants did not quantify their claim and, at the hearing on 24 April 1978, their counsel stated that they hoped that the amount of damage suffered by them could be agreed "without troubling the Court".

At the hearing on the following day, the Court, pursuant to Rule 47 bis, invited the Government to present their observations on the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) in the present case. The Solicitor-General's closing submission was that this was an issue which the Court would not have to consider.

78. The Court notes that the applicants limit their claim to the above-mentioned costs and expenses but do not for the moment indicate their amount. In these circumstances, the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the Convention is not ready for decision; the Court must therefore reserve the question and fix the further procedure, taking due account of the eventuality contemplated in Rule 50 (5) of the Rules of Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. holds by eleven votes to nine that there has been a breach of Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention;

2. holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 14 taken together with Article 10 (art. 14+10);

3. holds unanimously that it is not necessary to examine the question of a breach of Article 18 (art. 18);

4. holds unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) is not ready for decision;

accordingly,

(a) reserves the whole of the said question;

(b) invites those appearing before the Court to notify it, within three months from the delivery of this judgment, of any settlement at which the Government and the applicants may have arrived;

(c) reserves the further procedure to be followed on this question.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authentic, at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, this twenty-sixth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine.

Signed: Giorgio BALLADORE PALLIERI

President

Signed: {Marc-Andre} EISSEN

Registrar

The separate opinions of the following judges are annexed to the present judgment in accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and Rule 50 para. 2 of the Rules of Court:

- dissenting opinion of Mr. Wiarda, Mr. Cremona, {Mr. Thor Vilhjalmsson}, Mr. Ryssdal, Mr. Ganshof van der Meersch, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Mrs. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr. Liesch and Mr. Matscher;

- concurring opinion of Mr. Zekia;

- concurring opinion of Mr O'Donoghue;

- concurring opinion of Mr. Evrigenis.

Initialled: G. B. P.

Initialled: M.-A. E.