CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 juillet 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 July 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         J.A. FROWEIN                         F. ERMACORA                         E. BUSUTTIL                         G. JÖRUNDSSON                         G. TENEKIDES                         S. TRECHSEL                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         A. WEITZEL                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                         H. VANDENBERGHE                    Mrs   G.H. THUNE                    Sir   Basil HALL                      Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 21 December 1984 by P.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 April 1985 under file No. 11501/85;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicant is a British citizen born on 4 January 1960 and is currently serving a prison sentence at H.M. Prison Featherstone Wolverhampton.   The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   On 5 September 1984 a camera crew from Central Television visited Leicester Prison, where the applicant was then held, to collect material for a television programme.   The applicant was filmed without his knowledge or consent.   The documentary programme was screened on public television on 10 September 1984 and the applicant discovered that he had been filmed walking across a yard, his face fully revealed.   The applicant complained to the prison governor, who told him that the film crew had been briefed to ask permission of all inmates who were filmed.   The applicant was at no time asked for his permission.   The applicant also petitioned the Secretary of State but on 13 September 1984 his petition was refused.   The applicant subsequently sought legal advice with a view to initiating court proceedings for breach of privacy against the television company and the prison authorities.   He was informed in counsel's opinion dated 11 December 1984 that there was no ground in English law for bringing proceedings against either party.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that the film constituted a breach of his privacy, causing embarrassment, humiliation and shame to himself and his family and friends.   He has lost contact with his family since the film as a result and states that his prospects of employment after release have been harmed.   He further complains there is no effective remedy for his complaints.   The applicant accordingly invokes Arts. 8 and 13 (art. 8, art. 13) of the Convention.   Proceedings before the Commission   The application was introduced on 21 December 1984 and registered on 20 April 1985.   The Secretariat requested further information in a letter dated 14 August 1985.   A further letter dated 11 March 1986 was sent to the applicant's prison and home addresses repeating the request for information and warning that if no reply was received the Commission might strike the application off its list of cases.   The letter addressed to the applicant's home address was returned for the reason that the applicant had "gone away".   No reply was made to the letter sent to the prison where the applicant had previously been serving his sentence.   Finding of the Commission   The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to respond to a request for further information sent on 14 August 1985 and 11 March 1985 respectively.   It would further appear that if he is no longer at the prison or home address previously given, he has failed to inform the Commission of any change in address.   The Commission therefore finds that the applicant has lost interest in maintaining his application before the Commission and that there are no reasons relating to the general interest to continue its examination of the application.   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)