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. 27762/95                     by Derek FINCH                     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 16 June 1995 by Derek Finch against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 June 1995 under file No. 27762/95;        Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the respondent Government's indication that they have no observations on the admissibility of the applicant's complaints;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:     THE FACTS        The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1960 and resident in Lincoln. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.   A.    Particular circumstances of the case.        In May 1994 the applicant, then a non-commissioned officer in the army stationed in Cyprus, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with six counts of false accounting (a civilian criminal offence) contrary to the Theft Act 1968.        The Convening Officer convened a district court-martial in Cyprus to try the applicant on the charges. On 2 June 1994 the applicant pleaded guilty to all charges and he was sentenced to six months detention on each count (which sentences were to run concurrently), to dismissal from the army and to be reduced to the ranks.        The applicant's conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Confirming Officer on 21 June 1994 and promulgated on 7 July 1994.        On 2 September 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council against conviction (the applicant arguing, inter alia, that he was misled into pleading guilty) and sentence. By letter dated 11 November 1994 the applicant's representative was informed that the Army Board, who took the decision on this petition, had rejected his petition.        On 14 November 1994 the applicant applied to a single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal against conviction to that court. On 6 January 1995 this application was rejected.        The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction before the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court and on 6 March 1995 this application was rejected by the full court.   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice.        The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice" contained in the judgment in the Findlay case (Eur. Court HR, Findlay v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1997) and in its report on the Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm. Report 25.6.96, unpublished).     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 16 June 1995 and was registered on 30 June 1995.        On 18 October 1995 the Commission decided to communicate and adjourn the application.        On 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request the Government's observations. In their letter received on 7 November 1996 the Government stated that they have no observations on the admissibility of the application.     THE LAW        The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that he was denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Government have no observations on the admissibility of the applicant's complaints.        The Commission considers that the application raises complex and serious issues under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which require determination on the merits. It follows that these complaints of the applicant cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the      merits.       M.F. BUQUICCHIO                             J. LIDDY      Secretary                                President to the First Chamber                     of the First Chamber