CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 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. 15396/89                       by R.                       against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 September 1991, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   F. ERMACORA                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ RUIZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   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 1 June 1989 by R. against the United Kingdom and registered on 25 August 1989 under file No. 15396/89.           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 and resident in Blackpool.           The applicant has a daughter D, who gave birth to a daughter V on 8 December 1986.   On 15 July 1988 D made statements to her health visitor and to the police, which resulted in the applicant being arrested and questioned on 31 July 1988 as regards alleged rape and incest.   On 18 April 1989 the applicant was charged with incest and rape in respect of his daughter D.   The applicant initially denied that he had committed these offences and gave blood samples to the police which were subjected to DNA testing and compared with blood samples from D and V.   The result of the test was consistent with the applicant being the biological father of V, and he eventually pleaded guilty to the allegation of incest.   He was convicted on 5 December 1989 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.           The applicant had divorced his first wife some years earlier and lived with another woman S, who has a daughter T born in 1980. The applicant and S have also had a son B born in 1989.   They were informed by the Social Services in Blackpool that the children would be taken into care if the applicant continued to have contact with them.   The applicant left his home to live with his sister.   S and the children remained in the house.   The applicant married S on 9 June 1989.           On 19 August 1989, a place of safety order was made in respect of T.   It appears that she returned to her mother when the applicant was imprisoned.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the police and the welfare authorities have interfered with his private life, and prevented him living with his wife and their children.   He complains that T has since been taken into care on false grounds.   He further complains of being treated as guilty by the police and welfare authorities and of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police while in their custody in July 1988.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that he is prevented from living with his wife and children.           The Commission has examined these complaints under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which provides:           "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private         and family life, his home and his correspondence.           2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority         with the exercise of this right except such as is in         accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic         society in the interests of national security, public safety         or the economic well-being of the country, for the         prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of         health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and         freedoms of others."           The Commission recalls that the applicant was convicted of incest and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.   It notes that there is no legal impediment to the applicant's returning to his wife, child and step-child on his release.   Indeed, it is conceivable that, if the applicant co-operates with the Social Services, he will be permitted to remain in the house on his return from prison. Accordingly, this aspect of the application discloses no lack of respect for the applicant's family life and this complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant complains of being treated as guilty by the police and welfare authorities.           Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention provides:           "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be         presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."           The Commission notes that the police and welfare authorities took action in response to D's allegations against the applicant, the police by investigating and bringing charges against the applicant and the welfare authorities by exercising their statutory responsibility to have regard to the welfare of children within their jurisdiction.           The Commission finds no indication in the present case that the measures taken amount to a presumption of guilt contrary to Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention.           It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.       The applicant also complains of his treatment by the police while in their custody after his arrest in July 1988.   He alleges a violation of Article 3 (Art. 23) in this regard.           However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or not this complaint discloses any appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, as Article 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, the treatment of which the applicant complains occurred in July 1988 whereas the application was submitted to the Commission on 1 June 1989, that is, more than six months subsequent to the treatment complained of.   Furthermore, an examination of the case, assuming that there were no domestic remedies the applicant was able to exhaust, 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.             For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)