CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 27 novembre 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 }                            Application No. 26288/95                       by Martin HAMILTON                       against the United Kingdom         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:                Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION              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 24 January 1994 by Martin HAMILTON against the United Kingdom and registered on 25 January 1995 under file No. 26288/95;         Having regard to :   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       3 January 1996 and the correspondence between the Secretariat and       the applicant and his representatives since January 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.         The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1961 and residing in Glasgow.   He is currently in prison.         On 21 April 1992 the High Court convicted the applicant and three other persons for having conspired to rob the office of a Glasgow company.   The applicant was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, two others of his accomplices to 15 years' imprisonment and the fourth accused to 12 years' imprisonment.   The applicant was legally represented during the trial.         The applicant appealed against his conviction.   He inquired unsuccessfully about the possibilities to obtain legal aid but did not submit a formal application for legal aid to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.         On 24 June 1993 the applicant and two of his accomplices appeared before the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh for the hearing of their appeal.   The applicant was represented by counsel who informed the Court that the applicant had been refused legal aid but had made private funds available for the purposes of his appeal.   The applicant's counsel sought and obtained a continuation of the appeal for a later date.         The appeal came before the Court again on 7 October 1993, when the applicant presented his case in person.   He stated that the trial judge had misdirected the jury, referring to several particular passages of the minutes from the trial.   The Court dismissed the appeal.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention that he did not receive legal aid for purposes of the appeal proceedings.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 24 January 1994 and registered on 25 January 1995.         On 18 October 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 3 January 1996.   On 8 January 1996 a copy of these observations was sent to the applicant's representatives who were invited to submit, before 27 February 1996, their observations in reply.   No such observations were received by the Commission.         On 5 March 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.         By letters sent to the applicant's representatives and to him directly on 10 April 1996 and again on 9 May 1996 by registered mail, the applicant was invited to state whether he intended to pursue his application and was warned about the provision of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   On 15 May 1996 the applicant's representatives replied and requested an extension "of the hearing of the case" because they could not "attend Strasbourg" at the end of June.   They also mentioned that they had had lost contact with the applicant for some time due to his transfer to another prison, but that they had found his new address.   On 22 May 1996 the applicant's solicitors were informed that the time-limit for a written reply to the Government's observations could not be extended as the extension had been requested long after the expiry of the initial time-limit.   The Secretariat's letter also indicated to the applicant's representatives that if they nevertheless wished to submit observations in reply, they could do so.         On 1 July 1996 the applicant's representatives wrote to the Commission stating only that the applicant still intended to pursue his application.         On 2 July 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) considered the state of the proceedings in the present case and, noting that the applicant has not replied to the Government's observations, decided to put to him and to his representatives specific questions on the admissibility and the merits of the application.         On 8 July 1996 the Secretariat sent to the applicant's representatives and to the applicant directly, by registered mail, letters inviting them to reply in writing, before 2 September 1996, to the specific questions put.   The letters also indicated that failure to answer could lead the Commission to conclude that the applicant did not seriously intend to pursue his application.   No reply was received.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that the applicant, represented by counsel, initially did not react when invited to submit observations in reply to the Government's observations.   Not until two months and a half after the expiry of the time-limit set for this purpose, and only following two warning letters, did the applicant's solicitors express their intention to pursue the matter.   However, when given ample opportunity to do so, by answering specific questions, they did not react.   Furthermore, the applicant's representatives were repeatedly warned that this lack of activity on their part might lead the Commission to the conclusion that the applicant did not seriously intend to pursue the application.         Moreover, after March 1996 the Secretariat contacted the applicant directly, by registered mail, but no response was received.         In these circumstances, the Commission concludes pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that it is, therefore, no longer justified to continue the examination of the petition. Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention which require the further examination of this application.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.           M.F. BUQUICCHIO                         J. LIDDY         Secretary                             President    to the First Chamber                 of the First Chamber