CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 février 1990

.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. 12583/86                       by T.N.                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 February 1990, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   J. CAMPINOS              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                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 26 November 1986 by T.N. against the United Kingdom and registered on 1 December 1986 under file No. 12583/86;           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, Mr. T.N., is a citizen of the   United Kingdom, born in 1965.   He is at present unemployed and lives in Cookstown, Northern Ireland.   He is represented in the proceedings    before the Commission by J.C. Napier & Co., solicitors, Belfast.           The facts as agreed between the parties may be summarised as follows:           The applicant was arrested on 1 October 1986 by officers of the Metropolitan Police Force at premises in Heston, Middlesex, under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.*           He was told that he was being arrested under the 1984 Act on suspicion that he had been involved in acts of terrorism on behalf of the Provisional IRA.   _________   *   The relevant parts of Section 12 of the 1984 Act provide as follows:   "(1)      A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be -           (a) a person guilty of an offence under section 1, 9, 10         or 11 of this Act;           (b) a person who is or has been concerned in the commission,         preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;           (c) a person subject to an exclusion order.   (3)      The acts of terrorism to which this Part of the Act applies are -           (a) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of         Northern Ireland; and           (b) acts of terrorism of any other description except acts         connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom         or any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland.   (4)      A person arrested under this section shall not be detained in right of the arrest for more than forty-eight hours after his arrest; but the Secretary of State may, in any particular case, extend the period of forty-eight hours by a further period or periods specified by him.   (5)      Any such further period or periods shall not exceed five days in all.   (6)      The following provisions (requirement to bring an accused person before the court after his arrest) shall not apply to a person detained in right of the arrest -           ...           (d)      Article 131 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern         Ireland) Order 1981; ..."           The applicant had travelled to England in June 1986 from Cookstown in Northern Ireland, where he lived.   Information received by the Metropolitan Police gave rise to concern that he may have been present in Great Britain with a view to preparing acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.   In particular he was suspected of membership of the Provisional IRA, an organisation proscribed in Great Britain under Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to the 1984 Act.   The applicant had previously been arrested in November 1985 with his brother on suspicion of involvement in the planting of a bomb, although no charges were brought against him on this occasion.           After his arrest the applicant was taken to Rochester Row Police Station in London, where he was interrogated.   He declined to answer any questions.           On 2 October 1986, his detention was extended by a further four days.   The Secretary of State granted a further extension of the applicant's detention by one day on 6 October 1986.           On 7 October 1986 an exclusion order under Section 4 of the 1984 Act was made against the applicant.   The Secretary of State was satisfied that he had been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism designed to influence public opinion or government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland.   The applicant was subsequently removed to Northern Ireland later that day.           On 1 October 1987 the applicant was charged with various offences in Northern Ireland, including attempted murder of a member of the security forces in Cookstown, possession of firearms and unlawful imprisonment.   He is, at present, remanded in custody awaiting trial.   COMPLAINTS           In the application form the applicant made the following complaints under Article 5 of the Convention:   -        that his arrest under Section 12 of the Act constituted a breach of Article 5 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention;   -        that he was arrested solely for the purpose of detaining him and that his detention was not justified under Article 5 para. 1;   -        that he was arrested solely for the purposes of interrogation contrary to Article 5 para. 1;   -        that he was prevented from bringing any proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his detention by Section 12 and para. 5 (2) Schedule 3 of   the 1984 Act in breach of Article 5 para. 4;   -        that he was denied any enforceable right to compensation as a result of Section 12 and para. 5 (2) of Schedule 3 of the 1984 Act in breach of   Article 5 para. 5.           The applicant further claimed that the lack of an enforceable right to compensation constitutes a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 26 November 1986 and registered on 1 December 1986.   It was first considered by the Commission on 7 October 1987 when it was decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 of the Rules of Procedure, and to adjourn the application pending the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (Nos. 11209/84, 11234/84, 11266/84, 11385/85).           Following the judgment of the Court in the case of Brogan and Others (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A No. 145 B) the Commission decided on 12 December 1988 to request the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility   and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were submitted on 31 March 1989 after an extension of the time-limit for the filing of the observations had been granted.   The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 25 April 1989.   Comments on these observations were made by the Government on 12 June 1989 followed by comments of the applicant dated 18 October 1989.           The applicant was granted legal aid by the Commission on 12 May 1989.           In his observations in reply of 25 April 1989, the applicant indicated that he was no longer complaining of a breach of Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.   He stated that he limited his complaint to Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 of the Convention.   He further indicated that in the light of the case of Brogan and Others (loc. cit) it was unnecessary to consider the case under Article 13 where there were breaches of Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant was arrested by the police in Heston, Middlesex, on 1 October 1986 under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.   He was told that he was being arrested under the 1984 Act on suspicion that he had been involved in acts of terrorism on behalf of the Provisional IRA.   He was detained by the police until 7 October 1986 when he was served with an exclusion order requiring his removal from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.   In his application form to the Commission the applicant, who was legally represented, alleged violations of Article 5 paras. 1, 2, 4, 5 (Art. 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-5) and Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   He did    not complain either formally or in substance that he was not brought promptly before a judge in breach of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   2.       In his reply to the observations of the Government the applicant conceded that there was no breach of Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 4 (Art. 5-1, 5-2, 5-4) of the Convention.   In these circumstances the Commission considers that it is not necessary to examine these complaints any further.   3.       The applicant maintained, however, that that there was a violation of Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 (Art. 5-3, 5-5) of the Convention in view of the case of Brogan and Others (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A No. 145 B).           The Commission notes that the applicant did not complain under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) either formally or in substance when he introduced the application before the Commission on 26 November 1986. He first raised this complaint in his observations in reply dated 25 April 1989.           In the opinion of the Commission this complaint has thus been introduced out of time since it was made more than six months from the date of the applicant's arrest and detention, which must be regarded as the final decision for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.           Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.           It follows that the applicant's complaint under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   4.       The applicant further complains under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention which provides that   "5.       Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation."           However, it is clear that an issue will only arise under this provision where there has been an arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 (Art. 5) (see the case of Brogan and Others, loc. cit., p. 35 para. 67).   For the reasons set out above, this issue does not arise for consideration in the present case.           It follows that even if this complaint could be considered as having been introduced in time, it must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   5.       Finally, as regards the applicant's complaint under Article 13 (Art. 13), it is not clear from the applicant's submissions whether it can be   said that this complaint has been withdrawn.   However, even assuming that the complaint is maintained, it must also be considered to have been introduced out of time insofar as the complaint is made in conjunction with Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.           Consequently, it must also be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) 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)