CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 mai 1996

.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. 27006/95                        by J.B.                        against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 15 May 1996, 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 30 January 1995 by J.B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 April 1995 under file No. 27006/95;        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 United Kingdom national born in 1943.   He is unemployed and resides in Canterbury.   Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr. Timothy J. Bancroft, solicitor of John Copland and Son, Sheerness.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        In March 1992 the applicant and his family became the objects of media attention in connection with a television election broadcast. The factual basis of the broadcast, for which the applicant had unwittingly provided an idea, was incorrectly stated to be the applicant's daughter's health problems.        On 11 April 1993 the Sunday Express published an article detailing the applicant's private life following his separation from his daughter's mother.   It stated, inter alia:        "A year ago [the applicant] and his lover ... found overnight      notoriety after the infamous ... election broadcast.   It thrust      their six-year-old daughter into the limelight when the film      attempted to hoodwink voters by claiming [the applicant's      daughter] had been forced to wait 11 months for an ear operation      because of NHS cuts.   But it emerged that the delay in her      treatment was due to an administrative error and she had been      admitted to hospital the moment the mistake was spotted.   [The      applicant's daughter] looked on bewildered as the storm designed      to discredit the Tories blew back towards her parents with      hurricane force."        The article further criticised the applicant stating that his actions had brought "turmoil" to his daughter's life.   The newspaper published a secretly taken photograph of the applicant being kissed by his girlfriend at the time.   According to the article the applicant stated that he lived with his girlfriend and that they had a close relationship.   However, the applicant has never made such a statement.        The applicant unsuccessfully sought redress from the newspaper as regards the factual inaccuracies and defamatory comments.   On 27 August 1993 the Press Complaints Commission refused to deal with the matter.   The applicant then sought to bring legal proceedings.        On 23 September 1993 the applicant was granted legal aid to take proceedings against Express Newspapers plc for damages for malicious falsehood.   The legal aid was limited to obtaining counsel's opinion as to whether the applicant's action could succeed.        In his opinion of 1 June 1994 the counsel advised the applicant that any action against Express Newspapers plc for malicious falsehood would be unlikely to succeed, mainly because of the absence of evidence of malice.   The opinion comprised, inter alia, the following statement:        "This article does illustrate one of the contrasts between      defamation (libel and slander) and malicious falsehood.   Although      in libel there would still be the same difficulty with the      meaning of the words, which I do not believe bear the sense that      [the applicant] sees in them, at least the publisher's intention      would be immaterial, because in libel, the intended meaning or      state of mind of the publisher is irrelevant - what matters is      simply the objectively assessed meaning of the words...        I accept that if (contrary to my view) the meaning of these words      were as [the applicant] asserts, it would plainly be false."        In counsel's view the applicant could not succeed on any other legal basis for which legal aid was available.   In consequence of this opinion the Legal Aid Certificate was discharged on 8 December 1994.        The applicant's legal representatives considered that counsel's opinion effectively suggested that the applicant had an arguable libel case.   By a letter of 22 July 1994 they informed the editor of the Sunday Express that the article of 11 April 1993 was, in the applicant's view, libellous and that their client envisaged a claim for appropriate compensation.   The editor was asked to submit his possible proposals for settlement on this claim.        On 5 August 1994 the legal adviser of Express Newspapers plc confirmed the publisher's view that the article at issue was not defamatory of the applicant and made no offer of settlement.        Since the applicant was not in a position to pay the fees of a lawyer, he was prevented, because of its complexity, from pursuing properly his action for libel before a court.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that since legal aid is not available in proceedings for libel and since he could not afford legal assistance, without which he would have had no realistic chance of pursuing his case properly, his right to access to a court was violated.        He further alleges a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in that he was discriminated against on grounds of property from pursuing his case properly.        Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in that the article at issue involved interferences with his private and family life for which he had no remedies under United Kingdom law.   THE LAW        The applicant complains that because of the non-availability of legal aid in proceedings for libel, and because of the absence of any other remedy under United Kingdom law, he was prevented from seeking redress in respect of the article of 11 April 1993 which, in his view, was defamatory of him.   He alleges a violation of Articles 6, 8 and 14 (Art. 6, 8, 14) of the Convention.        The Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.   In accordance with the Commission's case-law this period runs from the moment the applicant (or, as the case may be, his or her legal representative) is aware of the matter of the complaint before the Commission (cf. No. 12015/86, Dec. 6.7.88, D.R. 57 pp. 108, 113, with further references).        In the present case the applicant's legal representatives became aware of the situation of which the applicant complains when they received counsel's opinion informing the applicant that any legal remedy against Express Newspapers plc covered by the legal aid scheme was unlikely to succeed, i.e. not later than 22 July 1994 when they sought to obtain, in the light of that opinion, compensation from the editor of the Sunday Express on the ground that the article at issue was libellous.   The Commission therefore considers that the period of six months ran from 22 July 1994 at the latest.        Since the application was introduced on 30 January 1995, the applicant has failed to comply with the six months' time limit laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.        It is true that on 5 August 1994 Express Newspapers plc denied its liability and made no offer to pay compensation to the applicant. However, the applicant's request for a settlement addressed to the opposing party cannot be regarded as an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention as it gave no possibility to the United Kingdom authorities to redress the alleged interference with the applicant's rights (cf., mutatis mutandis, No. 12945/87, Dec. 4.4.90, D.R. 65 pp. 173, 177; No. 17441/90, Dec. 4.9.92, D.R. 73 p. 201).   For this reason the refusal of that request cannot constitute the final decision for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.        It follows that the application has to be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C.L. ROZAKIS)