CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 26 juin 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. 27435/95                       by James Lockie THAW                       against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 26 June 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                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL              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 21 March 1994 by James Lockie THAW against the United Kingdom and registered on 31 May 1995 under file No. 27435/95;        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 British citizen   born in 1923 and resident in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.        In March 1988, the applicant agreed to sell his house at 7 Kirkstone Gardens ("the property") in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy. However, on the date of completion, 15 July 1988, the applicant's solicitor advised him not to complete since a bankruptcy petition had been presented on 23 February 1988 and all his property was therefore subject to bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant had already given the intended purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. F, the keys and they had moved into the property.        On 5 November 1988, the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, which had a mortgage over the property, ordered the applicant to give possession of the property within 28 days but did not then pursue proceedings.   Mr. and Mrs. F therefore continued to occupy the property without having purchased it and without paying rent.        On 1 August 1989, Mr. and Mrs. F took action to obtain specific performance of the contract for sale of the property. By letter dated 10 November 1989 the applicant's solicitors applied for legal aid to defend these proceedings. The applicant wanted the property to be sold on the open market by either the Building Society or the trustee in bankruptcy since he believed that a better price would now be achieved than the one he had agreed with Mr. and Mrs. F in March 1988. On 8 December 1989 legal aid was refused on the basis that inter alia the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for taking defending or being party to the proceedings, in particular the Legal Aid Board stated that:   i.    the applicant was unable to complete the purchase for purely      technical reasons and that there was no reason why he should      oppose completion now if the trustee did not object and the Court      permitted; ii.   since the Building Society had not yet obtained possession and      the Court had not yet ordered Mr. and Mrs. F to give possession,      the Building Society was not in a position to sell the property      and owed no duty to the applicant in regard to such a sale; iii. opposing completion could open the applicant's estate up to an      action for damages for breach of contract and in any event there      was nothing to suggest that the sale of the property by other      means would be sufficient to meet the applicant's liabilities.        On 18 May 1990 the Newcastle County Court ordered the property vested in the trustee in Bankruptcy be transferred to Mr. and Mrs. F upon payment of £34,000 plus accrued interest on £21,000. On 20 February 1991, the Registrar of the High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy refused the applicant leave to appeal from that decision. On 5 July 1991, the applicant appeared before the Vice Chancellor who overturned the Order of 20 February 1991 and granted the applicant leave to appeal out of time.   On 12 November 1992 the High Court upheld the order of Newcastle County Court of 18 May 1990.   The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal.   By letter dated 23 September 1994, the   Court Administrator's office wrote to the applicant stating that a test case was pending before the Court of Appeal, that the Registrar of Civil Appeals (a judicial officer) had directed that all cases that raised the point should remain in abeyance until the test case was decided and that because of pressure on the list, this could take some time.        In June 1994 the property was sold.   On 1 March 1995, the trustee wrote to the applicant to enquire as to the current situation with regard to the applicant's appeal, stating:        "I do not know whether you are aware, but the property at      7 Kirkstone Gardens, Newcastle upon Tyne was sold in June      1994.   Surely this must complicate matters and I think it      must be difficult to unravel this situation now". (Original      emphasis).   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains that he was denied legal aid for the purposes of the bankruptcy proceedings relating to the sale of his property at 7 Kirkstone Gardens.   2.    The applicant complains of the length of proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains that he was denied legal aid for the proceedings contrary to Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.   Article 6 (Art. 6), insofar as relevant provides.        "1.    In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or      of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a      fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an      independent and impartial tribunal established by law."        The Commission recalls that Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not guarantee a right to legal aid in civil proceedings and that the means by which the State ensures effective access to civil courts is therefore within its margin of appreciation (Eur. Court H.R. Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 15, para. 26, No. 10871/84, Dec. 10.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 154). In particular, the Commission recalls that even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil action, it is reasonable to impose conditions on its availability involving inter alia, the financial situation of the litigant or the prospects of success of the proceedings (No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21 p. 95). Where legal aid is denied on the basis that the claim is either not sufficiently well-grounded or is regarded as frivolous or vexatious, such a situation would not normally constitute a denial of access to court unless the applicant could show that the decision of the administrative authority was arbitrary (No. 8158/78 ibid).        The Commission notes that the applicant has continued the proceedings himself and still has an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal. Further, legal aid was refused on the basis that he had shown no grounds for being a party to the proceedings and that his claim had very little prospect of success. The applicant has made no allegation and the Commission sees no basis for finding that that decision was arbitrary. The Commission concludes that the applicant was not denied effective access to court as a result of not having been granted legal aid.        This part of the complaint must therefore be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant also complains about length of proceedings and invokes Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file determine whether there has been violation of this provision without the observations of the parties.        The Commission therefore adjourns this part of the application.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO ADJOURN its considerations of the complaint relating      to the length of proceedings;        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C.L. ROZAKIS)