CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 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 OF                         Application No. 13284/87                       by G. & D.M.                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 October 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS              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 1 September 1987 by G. & D.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 October 1987 under file N° 13284/87;           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&S           The first applicant, a businessman born in 1920 who has both German and British nationality, lives in London.   His wife, the second applicant, has British nationality and resides in London           This is the first applicant's fifth application and the second applicant's second application to the Commission.   I.           Application No. 6309/73 against the Federal Republic of Germany, which was introduced by the first applicant on 16 June 1973, concerned the refusal by the German authorities to grant the first applicant restitution in form of a loan.   The application was registered after the first applicant had been informed by the Secretariat of the conditions for filing an application.   The Commission declared the application inadmissible on 12 December 1974 on the ground that, while such restitution proceedings could relate to a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, the application was inadmissible under Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The decision was sent to the first applicant on 19 March 1975.   II.           On 22 March 1975, the first applicant visited, and wrote to, the Secretariat, claiming that in its previous decision the Commission had overlooked certain elements, and asking whether he could re-submit his papers.   The Secretariat explained to the first applicant the conditions for filing an application, but the first applicant persisted in pursuing his case.   It was then registered as Application No. 7745/76.   In this application, he complained, in respect of the Federal Republic of Germany, that the German authorities had refused to grant him restitution by means of a loan.   In respect of the United Kingdom, he complained of the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the procedures in which legal aid had been granted.   On 11 July 1977 the application was declared inadmissible, partly as being substantially the same as the previous application within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, partly as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2, in that in civil proceedings no right to legal aid was as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention.   This decision was sent to the first applicant on 13 July 1977.   III.           On 22 February 1982 the first applicant introduced a new application with the Commission against the United Kingdom which was registered under file No. 9875/82.   Therein, he complained inter alia that his lawyers had accepted a settlement in a negligence case brought by him against a law firm and had therefore refused to carry out their duties and thus barred him from pursuing his case in court.   He relied on Articles 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   On 4 July 1983 the application was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded since it did not generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.           In parallel proceedings, the second applicant introduced on 18 May 1982 Application No. 9876/82 against the United Kingdom.   This application concerned her retirement as a temporary officer from the Civil Service, without having been reinstated as a civil servant, and thus not being entitled to a pension.   Before the Commission she complained under Articles 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention that her case was dismissed by the courts in domestic proceedings on the grounds of her inability to act without legal help in court.   She also complained of the manner in which the lawyers had handled her case.   On 4 July 1983 this application was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, since it did not generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.           Decisions Nos. 9875/82 and 9876/82 were sent to the applicants on 24 August 1983.   IV.           On 31 August 1983 the first applicant submitted further statements to the Commission, whereupon he was informed by the Secretariat that these issues had been dealt with by the Commission in the previous two applications.   On 24 September 1983 he informed the Secretary that he intended to lodge a fresh complaint.   He was then informed of the conditions for filing an application with the Commission.   On 6 December 1983 the applicant also attempted to introduce proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.           Following further correspondence with the Secretariat and the first applicant's second visit to the Secretariat in Strasbourg, a new application which was considered as being introduced on 28 September 1984 was registered under file No. 11220/84 against the United Kingdom.   This application originated in bankruptcy notices which the applicant's solicitors had brought against the first applicant and, apparently, the second applicant for non-payment of outstanding monies.   Eventually, a disciplinary tribunal found that the solicitors had not behaved in accordance with professional standards.   The bankruptcies were subsequently discharged.   Before the Commission, the first applicant complained of the unfairness of these and other proceedings as well as of the English legal system, criticising inter alia "the Law Society's monopoly on legal aid" and alleging "the total lack of accountability ... in the whole of the British legal profession".           On 3 March 1986 the Commission declared the application inadmissible.    Insofar as the complaint related to general matters concerning the English legal system, the Commission found that this part of the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2. In respect of the complaint that the first applicant was denied legal aid the Commission found that this complaint was partly substantially the same as Application No. 9875/82 within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, and partly manifestly ill-founded since adequate redress had been afforded in the domestic proceedings for the applicant's complaints.   This decision was sent to the first applicant on 8 April 1986.   V.              On 2 December 1986 the first applicant wrote a letter to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in which he inter alia requested his complaints to be admitted.           In an undated letter which was received by the Secretariat on 13 March 1987 the applicants renewed their various complaints against persons and authorities in the United Kingdom.           Between 1 and 30 September 1987 the first applicant addressed himself directly to various members of the Commission.   He complained, apparently in the name of the second applicant, of the Commission's decision in Application No. 9876/82 of 4 July 1983, in particular that "the variance between that Decision and our Statement is so great that each could be describing entirely different cases".   In their letters the applicants requested the members of the Commission for comments on how they should now proceed.           These submissions have been transmitted to the Commission's Secretary who, in accordance with Rule 12 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, is the channel of all communications concerning the Commission.   They constitute a voluminous file from which it appears that the first applicant's complaints originate in relations with a bank as a result of which he was allegedly put out of business. He then apparently brought proceedings against the bank.   Later the first applicant brought a negligence claim against solicitors acting for him.   In these proceedings he was represented by new solicitors who accepted a settlement with which the first applicant apparently disagreed.   The other solicitors introduced bankruptcy proceedings against him, though the bankruptcies were eventually discharged.           The second applicant's complaints originate in, and partly concern, the fact that she was deprived of a civil servant's pension.   &-COMPLAINTS&S           In their various submissions, the applicants complain of the alleged unfairness of the resulting domestic proceedings in which they have been involved.   They also complain, inter alia, of the "etiquette restrictive practices" in the English legal profession, the alleged Law Society monopolies, and the legal profession's freedom from accountability for the consequences.   The first applicant has submitted that the British legal system "can suppress any action at will".   The applicants rely on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   &_THE LAW&S           The applicants complain of the alleged unfairness of the procedure in which they were involved as well as of the alleged deficiencies of the British legal system, in particular the British legal profession.   They rely on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.           The Commission has carefully examined the above applications and the separate complaints as they have been submitted by the applicants.   It has also considered these complaints against the background of the applicants' previous applications Nos. 9875/82, 9876/82 and 11220/84 and notes that the subject matters of the applications submitted by the applicants are essentially similar or related to each other in that the matters complained of concern, on the one hand, domestic litigation in which the applicants were involved, and, on the other hand, the alleged deficiencies of the British legal system, in particular the British legal profession.           The Commission further notes that since 1973, in connection with Applications Nos. 6309/73 and 7745/76, the applicants have had repeated opportunity to acquaint themselves with the procedure of the Commission.   Furthermore, on numerous occasions the first applicant has been informed in detail, in the Secretariat's correspondence and in personal discussions with members of the Secretariat, as well as with the Secretary, of the operation of the Convention.   All these communications, as well as the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of their previous applications must have made it clear to the applicants that their present application is either substantially the same as the matters already examined by the Commission and contains no relevant new information within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, or that it is manifestly ill-founded or incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           Having regard to this, and to the applicants' submissions, the Commission finds that the applicants have abused their right of petition within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2), in fine, of the Convention.   It refers in this respect to Nos. 5070/71, 5171/71 and 5186/71, Dec. 10.7.72, Collection 42 pp. 58 ff., and Nos. 5145/71, 5246/71, 5333/72, 5586/72, and 5587/72 as well as No. 5332/72, Dec. 2.4.73, Collection 43 pp. 152 f., in which the Commission, declaring the applications to be abusive, made the following statement:           "It cannot be the task of the Commission, a body which         was set up under the Convention 'to ensure the observance         of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting         Parties in the present Convention' to deal with a succession         of ill-founded and querulous complaints, creating unnecessary         work which is incompatible with its real functions, and which         hinders it in carrying them out."           The Commission finds that the same considerations apply to the application of the present applicants.   It follows that the present application constitutes an abuse of the right of petition within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)