CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 décembre 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. 14074/89                       by J.R. and W.A.                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 December 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   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.   L. LOUCAIDES                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 20 July 1988 by J.R. and W.A. against the United Kingdom and   registered on 1 August 1988 under file No. 14074/88;           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 first applicant, J.R., is a citizen of the United Kingdom who was born in India in 1927 and is normally resident in Fribourg, Switzerland.   The second applicant, W.A., is also a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1928 and normally resident in London.           Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Messrs. James and Sarch, solicitors, London.           The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the applicants, may be summarised as follows:           On 17 October 1985 the plaintiffs in civil proceedings against companies in which the applicants were involved, applied for the committal to prison of the applicants for an alleged breach of undertakings given to the court.   The application was rejected on 17 February 1986, and a further motion was made on 5 September 1986, allegedly supported by evidence of an inadmissible nature. Interlocutory proceedings took place to determine the admissibility of certain evidence, ultimately finding that the committal proceedings took their character from the proceedings on which they were based and were accordingly "civil proceedings".   The rules on admissibility of evidence in civil cases therefore applied.           On 9 March 1988, the Vice-Chancellor, in the trial of the motion of committal for contempt of court, found the applicants guilty of contempt and committed them to prison in absentia for periods of 2 years and of 6 months respectively from the date of their apprehension.           The applicants are still at large.   COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicants complained that the committal order against them constituted an unlawful deprivation of their liberty, contrary to Article 5 of the Convention.   2.       The applicants also complained that the admission of hearsay evidence of witnesses in the contempt proceedings without their being subject to cross-examination by the defence constituted a breach of their right to be presumed innocent, contrary to Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention.   3.       The applicants complained further that the admission of hearsay evidence of witnesses in the contempt proceedings without their being subject to cross-examination by the defence constituted a breach of Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 20 July 1988 and registered on 1 August 1988.           On 14 March 1989 the Commission decided that, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, the application should be brought to the notice of the respondent Government and they should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints that they were not able to cross examine the evidence admitted in the contempt proceedings.           On 26 June 1989 the respondent Government submitted their observations.           By letter of 4 July 1989 the applicants were invited to submit observations in reply before 22 September 1989.           In October 1989, after the expiry of the time limit, the applicants were reminded of the time limit and replied "it is anticipated that the complainants may be able to resolve the matters which are subject to the above applications without further pursuing the application to the European Court... to serve a reply at this stage would seriously prejudice this position.   We therefore request that further time be allowed the compliance in order to serve their reply...".   That letter was dated 16 October 1989.           On 20 October 1989 the applicants wrote "we apologise for not having previously reverted to you and for the reasons set out in [our letter of 16 October 1989] we confirm we request an extension to 20 December 1989."           On 6 November 1989 the applicants were informed that it was proposed to consider the application at the Commission's session beginning on 4 December 1989, and were told that the President had instructed them that, if they wished to make any submissions, they should do so by 30 November 1989 at the very latest.   The applicants were warned about the consequences under Rule 44 para. 1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure if the Commission concluded that they did not intend to pursue the application.           The applicants acknowledged receipt on 15 November 1989 but have not submitted any observations.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission finds that the circumstances of the present case, namely the applicants' failure to comply with the Commission's request to submit observations in reply before 22 September 1989, and their subsequent failure to submit observations in reply before the new and final time limit of 30 November 1989, lead to the conclusion that they do not intend to pursue their application.           The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the further examination of this case.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES     Deputy Secretary to the Commission       President of the Commission              (J. RAYMOND)                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)