Application No. 12720/87
by J. and L. B.
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 15 May 1985 by
J. and L. B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 February
1987 under file No. 12720/87;

        Having regard to:

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

     -  the Commission's decision of 8 May 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 mother and
daughter, born in 1955 and 1978 respectively.  They live in Surrey.
They are represented before the Commission by Messrs.  Binks, Stern
and Partners, Solicitors, London.

        On the 20 November 1984, the second applicant, then aged six,
was smacked on her bottom by her state schoolteacher in front of the
class.  During this punishment she urinated in full view of the teacher
and her classmates.  The applicants state that the second applicant
suffered emotional trauma as a result and for a considerable time
showed fear and panic about attending school in general (even after a
change of school) and about the teacher who had smacked her.


        The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal
punishment constituted violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the
Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.


        The application was introduced on 15 May 1985 and registered
on 2 February 1987.

        After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on
8 May 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
with a proposal that £500 be paid to the first applicant for the
alleged breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and that £3000 be paid
to the second applicant for the punishment and alleged breach of
Article 3 of the Convention.  A request was also made for the payment
of reasonable legal costs.  Nevertheless the applicants'
representatives stressed that if, in spite of arguments they had
advanced in support of their claims, 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)