CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 avril 1997

.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. 27567/95                       by Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS                       against the United Kingdom         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              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 25 May 1995 by Nicholas STAMOULAKATOS against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 June 1995 under file No. 27567/95;         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       15 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 6 April 1996;   -      the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 to invite the       parties to submit further written observations on the       admissibility and merits of the complaint concerning the length       of the above proceedings;   -      the further observations submitted by the applicant on       27 October 1996 and by the respondent Government on       22 November 1996;   -      the further comments provided by the applicant on       29 December 1996 and 11 January and 8 February 1997;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Greek citizen and a journalist. He was born in 1936 in Greece and is currently resident in London. This is his seventeenth application before the Commission. He has since lodged fourteen additional applications.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         On 31 December 1990 the applicant lodged an action against the "International League for Human Rights of United Nations", the "International Intelligence S.A.", Mrs. E.I and Mrs. H.J before the High Court for the recovery of a debt.         On 2 July 1991 a Master in chambers gave directions in the applicant's action.         By letter of 12 August 1991 the solicitors of Mrs. H.S, E.I's sister, informed the applicant that E.I had died.         On 2 October 1991 a judge proposed that the action be transferred to a County Court. On 14 October 1991 the High Court examined the matter and decided not to make an order for the transfer of the action to a County Court.         The applicant's action would have been called for trial on 11 December 1991. On that date the High Court heard the applicant and Mrs. W.T as representative of the first two defendants. It decided, however, to adjourn the trial to enable the applicant to take such steps as he thought appropriate to amend the writ and subsequent pleadings in relation to E.I. It also requested the Attorney General to appoint an amicus curiae to make submissions on the following issues: first, the capacity of the first and second defendants to be sued before the High Court, secondly,   whether the first two defendants had been properly served and thirdly, whether Mrs. W.T was duly authorised to represent them. Finally, the court ordered that an affidavit be sworn on behalf of the first two defendants dealing with their constitution, all matters relating to their capacity to be sued before the High Court and Mrs. W.T's capacity to represent them.         On 30 March 1992 the Attorney General suggested that, as a number of detailed inquiries needed to be carried out in order to assist the court, assistance might be better provided by the Official Solicitor. On 1 April 1992 the court agreed to this course of action.         In an undated report filed with the court the Official Solicitor noted, inter alia, that it had not been possible to establish whether either of the first or second defendants was a corporate body and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it could be presumed that the organisations were unincorporated associations which had no legal existence, apart from the members of which they were composed. The Official Solicitor also noted that a letter of inquiry addressed to the first defendant received a reply signed by or on behalf of the applicant himself.         In October 1992 the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice wrote to the applicant asking about the progress of the proceedings. On 1 November 1992 the applicant informed the court that there had been no settlement and that he was taking the matter to the European Court. The court wrote to the applicant in the same terms in October 1993. In a letter of reply of 14 November 1993 the applicant asked for his documents to be returned and for a new hearing date.         On 24 February 1994 the High Court heard the applicant and Mrs H.S in her capacity as personal representative of E.I. The court ordered the adjournment of the action to enable Mrs. H.S to make an application for the striking out of the applicant's claim. The earlier request for the assistance of an amicus curiae was assigned to the Official Solicitor.         On 12 June 1994 the applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal and an extension of time for appealing the order of 24 February 1994. On 24 June 1994 the Civil Appeals Office informed the applicant that a fee of 50 pounds, an affidavit in support and a sealed copy of the order of 24 February 1994 would be required. The applicant did not lodge the required fee, order and affidavit until 3 May 1995. In May 1995 there was further correspondence between the applicant and the Civil Appeals Office concerning the cost of certain transcripts which the applicant was required to produce in support of the appeal he intended to lodge. Once the transcripts were obtained the file was referred back to the Registrar of Civil Appeals for further directions in October 1995.         The application for leave to appeal was refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal on 5 February 1997. According to the Government, the application was not in a fit state to list because the bundles were so muddled and it was exceedingly difficult to follow what the case was about. It is claimed that, to assist the applicant, a leaflet explaining in simple terms what was required was sent to him. However, the applicant refused to comply with the instructions given.         The proceedings before the High Court are apparently still pending.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 25 May 1995 and registered on 12 June 1995.         On 29 November 1995 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.         The written observations of the respondent Government were submitted on 15 March 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 6 April 1996.         On 16 October 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to invite the parties to submit further written observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint regarding the length of the above proceedings.         The applicant submitted such further observations on 27 October 1996. The observations of the respondent Government were submitted on 22 November 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.         On 29 December 1996, 11 January 1997 and 8 February 1997 the applicant provided further comments.         On 13 February 1997 the respondent Government protested about the language used by the applicant in his observations and comments.         The respondent Government's letter of 13 February 1997 was transmitted to the applicant on 28 February 1997.   THE LAW         The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in the United Kingdom.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,       everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time       ..."         The respondent Government request the Commission to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention as an abuse of the right of petition. They submit in this connection that the applicant has had previous unsuccessful proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. These related to the fairness of ten separate sets of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in Greece which had taken place in his absence. The present application concerns civil proceedings initiated by the applicant in the United Kingdom in 1990 which have, as far as the Government can establish, no substance to them. Two of the defendants, whom the applicant purports to sue for the recovery of a debt, do not exist as legal entities and appear to have been represented by an agent of the applicant. The third defendant in the proceedings is now deceased. The fourth defendant, purportedly a former president of one of the non-existent entities, is alleged to be in collusion with the applicant in taking out nonsensical actions against various non-existent companies and individuals.         The respondent Government further submit that, since his arrival in that country, the applicant has initiated numerous proceedings. All his other actions have been struck out and in one case one of the defendants successfully counterclaimed against the applicant. As regards the proceedings complained of in the present application the Government was faced with two alternatives, allow them to have run the length of time that they have or have them struck out as an abuse of process, like the others. It follows that the applicant has not suffered any actual prejudice because, if the proceedings had not been allowed to continue, they would have been determined against him.         The respondent Government finally submit that the applicant's response to the Government's observations on the admissibility of the application contains provocative and insulting language concerning the Government and its Agent which, in accordance with previous case-law of the Commission, constitutes an abuse of the right of petition.         The applicant contests the submissions of the respondent Government.         The Commission notes that in the observations filed by the applicant in response to the Government's observations the applicant has made a series of allegations of criminal and dishonest conduct in language which is both insulting and abusive against the respondent Government and, more particularly, the Government's Agent. There is no evidence whatever to support the allegations made and nothing to warrant the language used, which in the Commission's view is wholly without justification. In this connection the Commission recalls that the persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant may be considered an abuse of the right of petition (No. 2724/66, Dec. 10.2.67, Collection 22, p. 89; No. 2625/65, Dec. 30.9.68, Collection 28 p. 26).         The Commission considers that this is the case with the present application. The application must be, therefore, rejected as an abuse of the right of petition in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber