CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 novembre 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. 12548/86                       by Patrick Joseph CONROY                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 November 1987, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   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.   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 24 October 1986 by Paatrick Joseph Conroy against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 November 1986 under file N° 12548/86;           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 Irish citizen, born in 1922 and lives in Manchester, United Kingdom.           The applicant has previously lodged an application with the Commission (No. 10061/82) concerning his dismissal from employment in 1979.   His dismissal was a consequence of expulsion from his trade union SOGAT (Society of Graphical Allied Trades) following a protracted dispute.           The Commission subsequently declared the application admissible in a decision dated 5 July 1985 insofar as it raised issues under, inter alia, Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.   On 15 May 1986 the Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and adopted its Report in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention.   The applicant's legal representative had indicated in a telex dated 12 May 1986 that "agreement has now been concluded on all outstanding matters".           Under the terms of the friendly settlement the Government offered £38,150 "in full and final settlement of the claims made by the applicant in this case".   It also agreed to pay the sum of £1,518 (including VAT) in legal costs to the solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant in the friendly settlement negotiations.             In letters dated 2 and 27 October 1986 the applicant received after the above settlement from solicitors acting on behalf of SOGAT a bill of costs for approximately £22,000 in connection with proceedings that the applicant had taken against SOGAT relating to his dismissal from the union.    These proceedings had taken place in the Manchester High Court on 21-25 January 1985 and in the Court of Appeal some time in November 1985.   Since legal aid had been withdrawn by the Law Society the applicant had represented himself in these proceedings.           No steps have yet been taken by SOGAT to recover the costs.     &_COMPLAINTS&S           The applicant complains of his continued harassment by SOGAT and the failure of the respondent Government to control the power of the union.           He invokes Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   THE LAW           The applicant, who has been presented with a bill of costs by his former trade union relating to previous legal proceedings which he had taken against SOGAT, complains of continued union harassment and the failure of the respondent Government to protect him.   He invokes Articles 10, 11 and 14 (Art. 10, 11, 14) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           The Commission first observes that no issue arises in the present case concerning the execution of the terms of the settlement reached between the parties in the applicant's previous application.           Insofar as the applicant is seeking to reopen the complaints raised in his previous application (No. 10061/82) the Commission recalls that these complaints were the subject of a friendly settlement approved by the Commission in its Report of 15 May 1986. Such a settlement, freely entered into between the parties, brings to a conclusion the legal issues in the case.   It follows, therefore, that the applicant's previous complaints cannot be reopened and that his application must, in this respect, be rejected as being substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.           Insofar as the applicant complains of continued harassment by SOGAT the Commission recalls that it can only examine complaints directed against the State, its organs and officials as opposed to private bodies such as trade unions.   This complaint must therefore be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           Finally, insofar as the applicant alleges that the United Kingdom is responsible for the acts of SOGAT the Commission considers that the issue of the presentation of the bill of costs in the circumstances of the case is not a matter which raises an issue under the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention or a matter which engages the State responsibility of the respondent Government. Accordingly this complaint must be rejected as 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)