CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 juillet 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                         Applications Nos. 15096/89, 15097/89 and                       15098/89                       by Paul Gerard McGLINCHEY and Others                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 July 1990, the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                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 applications introduced on 29 March 1989 by Paul Gerard McGLINCHEY and Others against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 June 1989 under file Nos. 15096/89, 15097/89 and 15098/89;           Having regard to   -        the reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -        the Government's written submissions of 19 January 1990 and the applicants' observations in reply of 4 April 1990;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The three applicants are of Irish and British nationality and resident in Londonderry.   The first applicant was born in 1963, the second in 1961 and the third in 1957.   They are represented before the Commission by Mr.   Ian Hawton Milligan, a solicitor practising in Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire, Scotland.           The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.           At about 22.00 h on 29 September 1988, the applicants were stopped by police officers as they were on the point of boarding a ferry at Stranraer which was going to Northern Ireland.   They were informed that they were being arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and detained at 22.10 h under Section 12 of the Act.           On 1 October 1988, the Secretary of State for Scotland granted an extension of 72 hours in the applicants' detention under the relevant legislation.           On 3 October 1988, the police made an application for Exclusion Orders in respect of the three applicants.   On 4 October 1988, the Secretary of State for the Home Department granted the Exclusion Orders, which were served on the applicants at approximately 18.00 h.   These orders stated that the Secretary of State was satisfied that the applicants were or 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 and prohibited the applicants from being in or entering Great Britain.   The applicants were released at 18.30 h into the custody of the Captain of the Ferry at Stranraer and duly returned to Northern Ireland.           The applicants' appeals against the Exclusion Orders were dismissed on 25 November 1988 and the three year Exclusion Orders confirmed.   COMPLAINTS           The applicants complain that their detention by the police and by the Secretary of State was in breach of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention since they were not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   They consider themselves entitled to compensation under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 29 March 1989 and registered on 8 June 1989.           On 2 October 1989 the Commission decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, and that the parties should be invited to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints.           The Government sent their written observations on 19 January 1990.   The applicants' representative submitted the applicants' written observations in reply on 4 April 1990.           The Commission decided to grant legal aid to the applicants on 16 February 1990.   THE LAW           The applicants complain that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 constitutes a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. They also allege a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.           Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention provides:           "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the         provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article (Art. 5-1-c)         shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer         authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be         entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release         pending trial.   Release may be conditioned by guarantees         to appear for trial."           Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention provides:           "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."           The Government do not contest the admissibility of the application.           The Commission recalls that in the BROGAN and Others case (Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A No. 145-B), the Commission and the Court found a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) in respect of the detention of four applicants for periods varying from 4 days 6 hours to 6 days and 16 1/2 hours without being brought before a judicial authority.   In the same case, the Commission and the Court also found a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) in that the applicants had not had a right to compensation in respect of the violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3).           In the present case, the Commission recalls that the three applicants were arrested and detained for 4 days 20 1/2 hours under the same provisions as in the Brogan and Others case without being brought before a judge or an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   The Commission finds that the applications cannot be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   As no other ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established these applications are admissible.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE         without prejudging the merits of the cases.     Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission           H.C. KRÜGER                              C.A. NØRGAARD