CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 septembre 1991

.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. 17143/90 by Eric OLDHAM against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 September 1991, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      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                      B. MARXER                   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 4 July 1990 by Eric OLDHAM against the United Kingdom and registered on 11 September 1990 under file No. 17143/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1948.           The facts of this matter as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           In 1970 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for manslaughter.   The Court accepted that the applicant had suffered brain damage at birth.   The applicant did not appeal against his conviction or sentence.           In 1974 the applicant underwent brain surgery to remove the damaged section of his brain.   In 1981 he was released on life licence.   In 1982 the applicant married for a second time.   The applicant and his second wife are now divorced.           In 1983 the applicant's licence was revoked after he was convicted of handling a stolen credit card.   In 1984 the applicant was, once again, released on life licence.   In December 1985 the applicant had an argument with his wife.   As a result of the differences between himself and his wife, the applicant went to live in a probation hostel.   Five days after this and upon recommendation of an officer of the probation service who considered the applicant's wife to be "afraid of him", the Home Secretary revoked the applicant's licence under Section 62 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.   The probation service recommended that the applicant be recalled to prison and he was recalled on 16 December 1985, making written representations to the Secretary of State about one week later.   The Parole Board confirmed the revocation of the applicant's licence on 2 May 1986.           On 27 October 1989 the applicant was notified that the Home Secretary had decided, upon the recommendation of the Parole Board and in consultation with the Judiciary that, subject to the applicant's continued good conduct and to the satisfactory completion of a period of six months n open conditions and nine months in a pre-release employment scheme, the applicant should be released on life licence.           On 23 November 1989 the applicant was transferred to Leyhill Open Prison.   He began working at the local branch of NACRO (the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders).   On 6 December 1984 the applicant was notified that his provisional release date was 22 February 1991.           On 23 March 1990 the applicant failed to return to Leyhill at the correct time.   A taxi driver had taken him to Bristol Prison instead of to a bus stop from where the applicant and other prisoners were to be picked up and taken to Leyhill.   The applicant was received into Bristol Prison and remained there for five weeks.   At the end of this period the applicant was informed that the Home Secretary had decided that he should spend an additional nine months at Leyhill and consequently that his provisional release date had been put back to 25 October 1991.   On 8 May 1990 the applicant resumed his work at NACRO.   On 9 May 1990 the applicant failed to return to Leyhill.   On 10 May 1990 the applicant was received into Bristol Prison.           On 25 June 1990 the applicant was notified that the Home Secretary had decided to cancel the applicant's provisional release date.   In addition, the applicant was informed that he was to be transferred to a Category C establishment (he had previously been a Category D prisoner).   The applicant was furthermore informed that he was to receive a review in September 1991.           The applicant petitioned the Secretary of State for the purpose of asking for his recall to be considered by a body other than the Parole Board.   This petition was refused.   The applicant then petitioned the Court of Appeal for the purpose of seeking leave to appeal out of time.   This petition was also refused.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that his rights under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention have been violated by virtue of the fact that he is unable to have his continued detention reviewed by an independent body capable of ordering his release.   He further complains that he is denied any form of redress against information from the Home Office which, he alleges, is inaccurate.   The applicant further complains that his rights under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention have been violated on the ground that he was not given an enforceable right to compensation under United Kingdom law in respect of the violation of Article 5 para. 4.           The applicant also complains that the Parole Board took almost six months to consider his representations made after his recall in December 1985.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that the Parole Board took six months to consider his representations made on recall in December 1985.           However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not this complaint discloses any appearance of a violation of the Convention as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".           In the present case, assuming that no domestic remedies were available to the applicant to challenge the time taken for the Parole Board's review, the review of 2 May 1986 itself falls to be considered as the final decision for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. Accordingly, the applicant's complaint in respect thereof should have been brought within six months of that date.   The present application, however, was only submitted to the Commission on 4 July 1990, that is, more than six months after this date.   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 this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 5 paras. 4 and 5 (Art. 5-4, 5-5) of the Convention by reason of the lack of a court review of his continued detention.   The Commission recalls that in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell (Eur.   Court H.R. judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 190) the European Court of Human Rights considered these questions.   It finds that they require further examination in the present case.           The Commission therefore adjourns this part of the application.           For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECIDES TO ADJOURN its examination of the complaints         under Article 5 paras. 4 and 5 (Art. 5-4, 5-5) of the         Convention as to the availability of a judicial review         of the applicant's detention and compensation;           DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.       Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission               (H. C. KRÜGER)                            (C. A. NØRGAARD)