CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 octobre 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 }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY   Application No. 12845/87 by Kewal Krishan ABROL against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 October 1987, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                      E. BUSUTTIL                      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.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 27 October 1986 by Kewal Krishan ABROL against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 April 1987 under file No. 12845/87;           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 an Indian citizen born in 1927 and resident in Birmingham.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           On 7 January 1981, the applicant, a dentist, carried out an emergency extraction on a patient who died shortly afterwards.   The applicant was charged with manslaughter and was convicted on 26 October 1981.   The applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years and fined £1000.   He was granted leave to appeal, but his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 13 July 1982.           The applicant subsequently applied to the Secretary of State for a reference under S.17(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 on the ground that forensic medical evidence had become available which cast doubt on the cause of death alleged by the prosecution.   The Secretary of State sought independent forensic medical advice, as a result of which he made a reference under the 1968 Act to the Court of Appeal, which on 11 July 1983, quashed the applicant's conviction.           The General Dental Council (hereafter referred to as the G.D.C.) had previously initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant but these were adjourned pending the outcome of the reference to the Court of Appeal.   Following the quashing of the conviction the applicant was informed by letter dated 12 July 1983 that disciplinary proceedings would not be resumed.           On 2 August 1983, however, the applicant received a letter from the G.D.C., which stated their intention to summon the applicant before the Disciplinary Committee on a charge of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.   This hearing, at which the applicant was represented by counsel, was held on 10 November 1983.   The Committee found, inter alia, that the applicant had failed to have a second qualified person present when conducting an extraction under general anaesthetic, that he had left the patient unattended and that he had failed to have sufficient resuscitation equipment available.   They accordingly found the applicant guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and erased the applicant's name from their Register.   The applicant would be able, however, under the Dentists Act 1984 to apply after 10 months for restoration of his name to the Register.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the Privy Council.   This appeal was dismissed on 10 April 1984.           The applicant subsequently applied to the G.D.C. for restoration to the Register.   His application was refused on 15 May 1985 and 14 May 1986.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, inter alia, in that the G.D.C. re-opened the disciplinary proceedings after his conviction was quashed and that the G.D.C. have refused to reinstate him.           The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 6 para. 2 in that following the quashing of his conviction, the G.D.C. brought disciplinary proceedings against him and thereby ignored the fact that the courts found him innocent.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that the disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the General Dental Council (the G.D.C.) constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and breached the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).           However, the Commission is unable to deal with this aspect of the case as the applicant has failed to observe the six months' rule laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   The final decision in the disciplinary proceedings was that of the Privy Council on 10 April 1984, but the applicant first lodged his complaints with the Commission on 27 October 1986, more than six months later.   It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant has also alleged that the refusal of the G.D.C. to restore his name to the Dentists' Register constitutes a further breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   However the Commission finds that the refusal cannot be said to amount to the serious ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3).   It must, therefore, reject this part of the application as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Deputy Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                      (J. RAYMOND)                           (C.A. NØRGAARD)