CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 11 avril 1989

.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. 10239/83   Peter WARDLAW against the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 11 April 1989)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                   page     I.       THE PARTIES         (paras. 1-3) ..........................................      1         II.      SUMMARY OF THE FACTS         (paras. 4-5) ..........................................      1         III.     THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         (paras. 6-16) .........................................     1-2         IV.      THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 17-19) ........................................      3               APPENDIX I       Partial Decision on admissibility .............     4-13     APPENDIX II      Final Decision on admissibility ...............    14-19   I.       THE PARTIES     1.       This Report, which is drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, concerns the application brought by Peter Wardlaw against the United Kingdom.   2.       The applicant represented himself before the Commission.   3.       The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Michael Wood of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.     II.      SUMMARY OF THE FACTS     4.       The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's Final Decision as to the admissibility of the application of 10 July 1985, attached hereto as Appendix II (pp. 14-19).   5.       The pertinent facts and complaints may be summarised as follows:           From 7 May 1982 to 10 August 1982, the applicant, who is serving a 16 years prison sentence, was detained in the segregation unit in Inverness Prison.   The applicant complained that the conditions of this detention violated Article 3 of the Convention and that he had no remedy for these complaints contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.     III.      PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION     6.       The application was introduced on 6 November 1982 and registered on 11 January 1983.   7.       On 4 October 1983, the Commission decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and that they should be invited to submit before 16 December 1983 their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.   8.       The Government sent their written observations on 11 January 1984 after an extension in the time-limit and the applicant's observations in reply were received on 29 February 1984.   9.       The Commission considered the application again on 9 July 1984 and decided to adjourn the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention and to obtain supplementary observations from the Government on this complaint.   The Commission declared inadmissible the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention on the same date.   10.      The supplementary observations of the Government were received on 26 October 1984.   The applicant declined to make any further comment.   11.      On 10 July 1985, the Commission declared the application admissible as regards the applicant's complaints under Article 13 of the Convention and decided to adjourn further consideration on the merits pending its decision in the case of Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom.   12.      On 14 July 1986, the Commission decided to adjourn further consideration of the merits pending the outcome of the case of Boyle and Rice before the European Court of Human Rights.   13.      Following the decision of the Court in the case of Boyle and Rice on 27 April 1988 (Eur.   Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131), the parties were invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application they wished to make.   The Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. b of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   14.      The applicant failed to reply to the letters from the Commission dated 6 June and 20 October 1988.   Subsequent to a registered letter of 17 November 1988, it was discovered that the applicant had been transferred to another prison.   By registered letter dated 12 December 1988, the applicant then was requested to indicate by 15 January 1989 whether he wished to pursue his application.   No reply was received.   By registered letter dated 6 February 1989, the applicant was informed that in the absence of any reply by 1 March 1989 the Commission might conclude that he had lost interest in pursuing the application and strike it off its list of cases.   No reply was received.   15.      By letter dated 6 March 1989 the respondent Government were consulted, in accordance with Rule 49 para. 2 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, as to striking the present application off the Commission's list of cases.   16.      On 11 April 1989 the Commission decided to strike the present application off its list, in accordance with Rules 44 para. 1 (a) of its Rules of Procedure.   It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the parties for information and to publish it.   The following members were present:                   MM.   J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                   Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES     IV.      THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION     17.      The Commission notes that the applicant failed to inform the Commission of his change of address and that he has not replied to any letters from the Secretariat regarding his application.   The Commission has not had any communication from the applicant since 13 May 1985.   18.      The Commission finds in these circumstances that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing his application and further considers that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which warrant further examination of the application.   19.      For these reasons, the Commission, having regard to Rules 44 para. 1 (a), 49 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,           - decides to strike Application No. 10239/83 off its list;           - adopts the present Report;           - decides to send the present Report to the Committee of           Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties,           and to publish it.         Secretary to the Commission          Acting President of the Commission                   (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (J.A. FROWEIN)