Application No. 10510/83
by K. and K. S.
against the United Kingdom


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 May 1988, the following members being present:

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     G. SPERDUTI
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     G. JÖRUNDSSON
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     H. VANDENBERGHE
                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
                Sir  Basil HALL
                MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                     C.L. ROZAKIS
                Mrs.  J. LIDDY

                Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission


        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 8 January 1983
by K. and K. STUDLEY against the United Kingdom and registered on 11
July 1983 under file No. 10510/83;

        Having regard to:

     -  reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure
        of the Commission;

     -  the Commission's decision of 2 October 1984 to bring the
        application to the notice of the respondent Government
        and invite them to submit written observations on its
        admissibilty and merits;


- ii -

10510/83


     -  the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
        13 February 1985 and the observations in reply submitted
        by the applicants on 26 March 1985;

     -  the Commission's decision of 8 May 1987 to invite the
        respondent Government to submit further observations on
        the admissibility and merits of the case;

     -  the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February
        1988;

     -  the applicants' acceptance of that proposal on 5 May 1988;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:
10510/83

THE FACTS

        The applicants, United Kingdom citizens, are mother and son,
and live in B. The second applicant was born in 1971.  They are
represented before the Commission by Mrs.  P. McBain, Messrs. Wilford
McBain, Solicitors, London.

        On 22 October 1982, the second applicant, then aged 11, was
given two strokes of the cane by a senior teacher at his state school
for his alleged involvement in a conspiracy to assault a fellow
pupil.  The caning caused weals to the boy's skin.  The same day the
first applicant and her husband unsuccessfully complained to the
teacher concerned and the police.  After correspondence with the
education authorities and the school headmaster, the latter invited
the first applicant and her husband to a meeting to discuss their
son's education and informed them that the senior staff had been
instructed not to corporally punish the boy.  However, on 26 May 1983
the second applicant was given two strokes across his hips with a
meter rule by his teacher for alleged misbehaviour in class.


COMPLAINTS

        The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal
punishment constituted violations of Article 3 of the Convention and
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 8 January 1983 and registered
on 11 July 1983.

        After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on
2 October 1984.  It decided to bring the application to the notice of
the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 (2) (b) of its Rules of
Procedure and to invite them to submit written observations on the
admissibility and merits of the application.

        The Government's observations were received on 13 February
1985, to which the applicants replied on 26 March 1985.

        On 8 May 1987, the Commission decided to invite the respondent
Government to submit further observations on the admissibility and
merits of the application pursuant to Rule 43 para. 3 (a) of the Rules
of Procedure.

        However, further observations were not submitted and the
Government expressed the wish on 5 August 1987 to explore the
possibility of resolving the case.

        The Commission decided on 12 December 1987 to suspend the
proceedings and to invite the Government to make specific proposals
for the resolution of the application.
10510/83

        On 3 February 1988 the Government made the following offer:
The Government recalled the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act
1986 and the abolition of corporal punishment in United Kingdom state
schools.  Moreover, without prejudice to their position on the merits
of the application, they proposed an ex gratia payment of £3000 to
the applicants.

        On 3 May 1988, the applicants' representative accepted the
offer.


REASONS FOR THE DECISION

        The Commission notes the Government's offer to pay the
applicants an ex gratia sum of £3000 to resolve the application and
the applicants' acceptance of the offer.  The Commission considers,
given the reform of the law on corporal punishment in state schools,
that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the
observance of the Convention which necessitate the further retention
of this case.  The Commission, therefore, concludes that the issues in
the case are resolved and that, in the circumstances, the applicants
do not intend to pursue this application (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure).

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.



   Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission




          (H.C. KRÜGER)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)