CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 mai 1987

.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 }                    Application No. 10822/84                   by P.G.                   against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 May 1987   the following members being present:                   MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   G. SPERDUTI                   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                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ                 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 6 April 1983 by P.G. against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 February 1984 under file N° 10822/84;           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, Ms. P.G., is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1953.   She is a medical secretary by profession and at present resides in W., England.   She is represented, in proceedings before the Commission, by Miss Tina Dempster of the National Council for Civil Liberties.           The applicant was, at the time of the introduction of the application, the common-law wife of Mr. J.W. who, following his conviction on 20 May 1983 at the Birmingham Crown Court for conspiracy to rob, is at present serving a ten-year sentence of imprisonment.   He is due to be released in September 1988.           On 15 July 1983 the applicant wrote to the Home Office requesting permission to be artificially inseminated with her common-law husband as a donor.   The application was supported by the applicant's doctor who indicated that facilities for artificial insemination were available at a hospital close to the prison.           This request was refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in a letter dated 17 August 1983.   In his letter he stated as follows:   "Facilities for artificial insemination are not normally made available to prisoners, although any application is very carefully considered in the light of the circumstances of the case to see if there are any wholly exceptional features which might justify such an arrangement.   Miss G. and Mr. W.'s case is not one, however, where it would be appropriate to make an exception."           In a subsequent letter dated 4 November 1983 confirming this refusal, the Secretary of State indicated that in fact no prisoner had yet been allowed facilities for artificial insemination.           Since the submission of her application to the Commission, the applicant was found to have developed a pre-cancerous abnormality of the cervix and received laser treatment at the Women's Hospital in Birmingham.   On 15 May 1985 she submitted a fresh request to the Secretary of State pointing out that in the light of medical evidence it might be too late for her to conceive, either naturally or artificially, by the time Mr. W. was released from prison in September 1988.   She claims that no reply was received to this petition.           In the meantime the Governor of Birmingham Prison granted permission for the applicant to marry Mr. W. in the prison chapel and the marriage took place on 15 July 1985.           A decision was subsequently taken by the Secretary of State of the Home Department in June 1986 to grant the applicant's request for facilities to enable her to be artifically inseminated with her husband as the donor.   COMPLAINTS AND SUBMISSIONS           The applicant submits that the earlier refusal of the Secretary of State to grant her permission to be artificially inseminated with her husband as donor constituted a breach of her right to respect for private and family life under Art. 8 of the Convention.   She concedes that the right to private and family life may be subject to interference in the interests of public safety. However, she points out that the arrangements needed for her then common-law husband to act as a donor would not pose any threat to prison security, and would not require the supervision needed for a conjugal visit (No. 8166/78, D.R. 13 p. 241).           She also alleges a breach of her right to found a family as guaranteed by Art. 12.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on the 6 April 1983 and registered on 20 February 1984.   It was first examined by the Commission on 3 March 1986 when it was decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to ask them to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in so far as it raised issues under Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the Convention.   These observations were to be submitted by 23 May 1986.           In a letter dated 23 June 1986 the Agent of the Government informed the Commission that the Secretary of State had decided to grant the applicant's request for facilities to enable her to be artificially inseminated with her husband, Mr. J.W., as the donor.   The applicant was informed of this decision and of the arrangements to give effect to it.           The applicant's legal representative was requested, in letters dated 2 July 1986, 20 September 1986, 10 November 1986 and 15 January 1987 whether, in the light of this development, the applicant wished to maintain her application before the Commission.   No reply has been received to these letters.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the applicant complained, under Articles 8 (Art. 8) and 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention, of the refusal by the Secretary of State to allow her to be artificially inseminated by her husband as the donor.   It further notes that the Secretary of State granted the applicant's request in June 1986 and that no reply has been sent to letters from the Secretariat requesting her to indicate whether she intended to maintain her application before the Commission.   The Commission finds that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue her application and that there are no reasons relating to the general interest to continue an 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. KRUGER)                          (C. A. NØRGAARD)