CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 octobre 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 }    Application No. 14747/89 by Peter CHESTER against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 1 October 1990, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                      J.C. GEUS                      A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                      M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   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 22 October 1988 by Peter CHESTER against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 March 1989 under file No. 14747/89;           Having regard to:        -   reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of         the Commission;        -   the Commission's decision of 6 July 1989 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 20 December 1989 and the observations in reply submitted         by the applicant on 2 March 1990;        -   the applicant's letter of 20 July 1990;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1954 and detained in H.M. Prison Wakefield, Yorkshire, where he is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.           He is represented before the Commission by Messrs.   Andrew & Co., Solicitors, Lincoln.           This is the applicant's third application to the Commission. His first, No. 9488/81, primarily concerning censorship of prisoners' correspondence, was the subject of a decision by the Committee of Ministers that the applicant had suffered a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Resolution DH (86) 6).   His second, No. 12395/86, also concerning censorship of his correspondence, is pending before the Committee of Ministers, awaiting a decision under Article 32 of the Convention.           In the present application the applicant complained that while he had been in the segregation unit he had been unable to attend prison church services.   He claimed to be a victim of a violation of Article 9 of the Convention.   The Government stated that the prison chapel was an insecure, temporary building to which, for security reasons, prisoners like the applicant, removed from association with others, could not have access.   A new secure chapel is scheduled to be built in 1991.   However, the prison chaplain conducts religious services in the applicant's segregation unit.   The applicant may attend these services and may be visited by the chaplain privately in his cell, or by a pentecostalist minister.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 22 October 1988 and registered on 8 March 1989.   After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on 6 July 1989.   It decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   The Government submitted their observations, after an extension of the time limit, on 20 December 1989.   The applicant replied on 2 March 1990, having been granted legal aid by the Commission on 16 February 1990.           On 20 July 1990 the applicant addressed a further communication to the Commission.   He complained that, despite the fact that the United Kingdom had been found by the Convention organs to have breached his right to respect for correspondence in the past, the Commission had failed to secure his rights or provide redress.   He now considered that he was wasting his time bringing applications to the Commission because he regarded the Convention machinery as inadequate to secure his rights or effectively uphold the Convention.   He regretted therefore that he could no longer pursue this present application to the Commission.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes the applicant's disappointment with the Convention machinery and his wish to withdraw his application.   It concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.   In this context the Commission notes the private facilities for worship available to the applicant and the Government's plans to build a secure chapel for communal worship starting next year.           For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.       Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission            (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)