CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 29 novembre 1995

.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. 23716/94                       by S.M. & G.C.                       against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:                Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 7 July 1993 by S.M. & G.C. against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 March 1994 under file No. 23716/94;        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 applicants are British citizens and make this application in their capacity as trustees of Meanscoil Feirste, a school in Northern Ireland. Both are represented by Mr. P. Drinan, a solicitor practising in Belfast.        Meanscoil Feirste was founded in 1991 and was the first Irish language non-denominational secondary school in Northern Ireland. The school is recognised by the Department of Education as an independent school. It depends on private donations for funding and its students do not pay fees.        In 1991 nine students enrolled. In 1992 and 1993 the enrolment figures were twenty seven and thirty seven, respectively. The Department of Education carried out an inspection of the school in 1992 and the inspectors indicated their satisfaction with the standard of education in the school.        The school then applied to the Department for public funding. However, by letter dated 1 September 1992 the Department indicated that it would not support funding for the school.        Subsequently, a further proposal was put to the Department. This proposal was considered by the Department but, by letter dated 22 November 1994, was also rejected on the basis that the principle of parental choice was outweighed by the need to avoid unreasonable public expenditure.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol 1 and Article 14 of the Convention that publicly funded secondary school education is available in English throughout the United Kingdom and in Welsh throughout Wales and that there is no public funding for secondary school education in the Irish language in Northern Ireland.        The applicants refer to the official acceptance in Wales that parents have the right to educate their children through the Welsh language, to the granting of public money in support of the Welsh language, to the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993 (which confer an official status on the Welsh language), to various provisions of the Education Act 1980 and the Education Reform Act 1988 (in respect of the teaching of the Welsh language in schools) and to the setting up of a Welsh section of the Curriculum Assessment Authority.        The applicants submit that, for many parents, the education of their children through the medium of Irish is an important part of their cultural identity and is the main reason why parents send their children to a school such as Meanscoil Feirste.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 7 July 1993 and registered on 18 March 1994.        By letter dated 19 May 1994 the Secretariat of the Commission referred the applicants' representative to a relevant decision of the Commission (No. 11533/85, Dec. 6.3.87, D.R. 51 p. 125) and requested clarification of whether the applicants were parents of children attending the school.        By letter dated 7 December 1994 the applicants' representative confirmed that neither of the applicants were parents of children attending the school but indicated that he intended submitting another application on behalf of a parent of a student of the school. A further application form was therefore forwarded to the applicants' representative on 26 January 1995.        By letter dated 6 July 1995 the Secretariat, inter alia, requested confirmation of the applicants' representative as to whether the present applicants wished to maintain their application and warning that in the absence of any response by 18 August 1995 it might be assumed that the applicants had lost interest in the application and that it could therefore be struck from the list of cases.        There has been no correspondence nor any other form of response from the applicants' representative since his letter of 1 December 1994.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission recalls that, having been notified of a possible admissibility issue as regards the status of the present applicants, the applicants' representative responded by indicating that he wished to submit another application on behalf of a parent of one of the students of the school apparently with a view to avoiding that admissibility issue in the present application. Having been sent a further application form, that representative was asked to clarify whether the present applicants wished to maintain their application. The applicants' representative has not responded at all and it is noted that the time limit fixed for such a response was 18 August 1995.        In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicants, through their representative, have indicated 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 First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M. F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C. L. ROZAKIS)