CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 juillet 1988

.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. 12506/86 by P. against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 July 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      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.   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 18 July 1986 by P. against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 November 1987 under file No. 12506/86;           Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of         the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 13 July 1987 to bring the         application to the notice of the respondent Government         and invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibility and merits;        -   the observations submitted by the respondent Government         on 11 December 1987;        -   the failure of the applicant's representatives to reply to         these observations or to correspondence from the Secretariat;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1953 and a sign writer by profession.   He is represented before the Commission by Messrs.   G. Howard Griffiths and Co., Solicitors, Abertillery, Gwent.           The applicant was in dispute with his local education authority over his insistence on educating two of his children at home rather than in state schools.   The local education authority was not satisfied with the standard of education offered at home, particularly in respect of the eldest child.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complained that the state of the English law on education and the attitude, decisions and procedures followed by the local education authority were in breach of Articles 1, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 18 July 1986 and registered on 3 November 1987.           After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 13 July 1987.   It decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were submitted on 11 December 1987 after an extension of the time-limit for their submission had been granted by the President of the Commission.   In these observations the Government informed the Commission that the applicant and his family had moved in August 1987 and that the children were attending a state primary school in the new area under a different local education authority.           The applicant did not reply to these observations and his representatives failed to acknowledge any further correspondence from the Commission's Secretary, including a second letter of reminder sent by registered post on 16 May 1988.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the applicant and his representatives have not responded to the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the case or responded to any further correspondence from the Commission's Secretary.   The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicant has lost interest in his application. It also finds that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the further examination of this case (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure).           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)