CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 mai 1993

.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. 20004/92                       by R.J. and W.J.                       against the United Kingdom         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 May 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  S. TRECHSEL                  F. ERMACORA                  G. SPERDUTI                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI              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 9 March 1992 by R.J. and W.J. against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 May 1992 under file No. 20004/92;         Having regard to:   -      the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       14 August 1992 and the letter from the applicants' lawyer dated       4 February 1993;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows: THE FACTS         The applicants, who are married, are British citizens born in 1955 and 1952 respectively. The first applicant is resident in Leeds and the second applicant is serving a prison sentence in H.M. Prison Wakefield. The applicants are represented by Mr. Victor Zermansky, a solicitor practising in Leeds.         The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.         The second applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. The first applicant has a history of gynaecological problems and has been advised that if she does not conceive in the near future it will become dangerous for her to do so.          On 15 May 1990, the applicants applied to the prison authorities for permission to carry out artificial insemination. On 5 July 1990, their application was acknowledged and they were informed that it was being dealt with and would be ready once advice had been received from the department's medical directorate. Several Members of Parliament wrote to the Home Office on behalf of the applicants enquiring as to the outcome of the application, which continued to be delayed. On 19 November 1991, a letter was received from the Home Office explaining that they were awaiting the outcome of a similar case before the European Commission of Human Rights and also waiting to review their criteria in light of this case and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990.         On 13 February 1992, the   Home Office decided, in light of the existing policy, to refuse the applicants' application. The letter stated that their case did not disclose sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify granting the application.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants submit that they wish to found a family. They complain that they have been refused permission to carry out the necessary artificial insemination treatment since they fail to meet the exceptional circumstances required by the Secretary of State. They invoke Article 12 of the Convention.         The applicants further complain that they do not have a remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the violation of their rights by an uncoordinated review body which delayed their decision for 22 months.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 9 March 1992 and registered on 18 May 1992.         On 30 June 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.         The Government's observations were submitted on 14 August 1992.              The applicants were granted three extensions in the time-limit for submitting their observations in reply. However, by letter dated 4 February 1993, the applicants' solicitor informed the Secretariat that he was no longer receiving instructions from the applicants.         The last time-limit for submitting observations in reply expired on 15 February 1993. By letter dated 18 February, the Secretariat drew this to the attention of the applicants and requested that they inform the Commission by 1 March whether they intended to withdraw the application. They were warned that in the absence of any response, it might be assumed that they had lost interest in the application and it could be struck from the list of cases.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission recalls that the applicants are no longer in contact with their solicitor who, in the absence of instructions from them, is no longer pursuing the case. Further, the time-limit for the submission of observations in reply has expired and the applicants have failed to reply to a letter from the Secretariat.         In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicants by their conduct indicate that they no longer intend to pursue their application. The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.         It follows that the application may be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(a) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission           (H.C. KRÜGER)                              (C.A. NØRGAARD)