Application No. 12676/87
by J. and R. 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 7 July 1984 by
J.and R. S. against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 February
1987 under file No. 12676/87;

        Having regard to:

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

     -  the Commission's decision of 12 March 1987 to bring
        the application to the notice of the respondent Government
        and invite them to submit written observations on its
        admissibilty and merits;

- ii -

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

     -  the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicants'
        representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


        The applicants, United Kingdom citizens, are father and son,
born in 1934 and 1971 respectively.  They live in Kent and are
represented before the Commission by Messrs.  Binks, Stern and
Partners, Solicitors, London.

        On 3 July 1984, the second applicant, then aged 13, was given
three strokes of the cane on his bottom by the deputy headmaster of
his state school for allegedly telling lies after an incident of
bursting paper bags in class.  The caning caused weals and bruising to
the boy's skin and left him upset and frightened, necessitating a
change of school.


        The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal
punishment constituted violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the


        The application was introduced on 7 July 1984 and first
registered on 5 August 1985 under file No. 11672/85 along with 11
other cases.  It was then re-registered under a separate file
No. 12676/87 on 3 February 1987.

        After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on
12 March 1987.  It decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its
Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the
respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit their
written observations on its admissibility and merits.

        However, 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.

        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.

        The applicants' representatives responded on 6 April 1988
accepting the offer of £3000, but adding a request for the payment of
reasonable legal costs.  Nevertheless, the applicants' representatives
stressed that if, in spite of arguments they  had advanced in support
of this latter claim, the Commission felt that the Government's offer
was reasonable, the applicants would be prepared to accept it.

        By letter of 19 April 1988 the Government stated that their
offer consisted of a global ex gratia payment which in their view
was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

        The applicants' representatives responded on 22 April 1988
requesting the Commission to decide the matter, whilst emphasising
that the Government's offer had not been rejected by their clients.


        The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex
gratia sum of £3000 to resolve this application.  It also notes
that the applicants have not rejected this offer, should the Commission
consider it reasonable.  The Commission finds the Government's offer
adequate in all the circumstances of the case.  Accordingly, the
applicants may be deemed to have accepted it.  Furthermore, 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


   Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

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