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. 31399/96                     by David Glen LEWIS                     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 3 May 1996 by David Glen Lewis against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 May 1996 under file No. 31399/96;        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 1964 and resident in Mid Glamorgan. 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 late 1995 the applicant, who was a non-commissioned officer in the Royal Air Force stationed in Germany, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955) with the civilian criminal offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.        The Convening Officer, by order dated 20 September 1995, convened a district court-martial to try the applicant. The court-martial took place in Germany on 27 October 1995. The applicant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to nine months detention, to be reduced to the ranks and to dismissal from the air force. He was also ordered to pay £500.00 compensation for the personal injury caused.        By letter dated 28 November 1995 to the applicant's representative, the Confirming Officer indicated that he had varied the applicant's sentence by specifying that the applicant was to be put under stoppages of pay until he had paid the compensation.        On 14 December 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council against sentence. By letter dated 12 March 1996 the applicant's representative was informed of the decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice.        The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice" contained 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 3 May 1996 and was registered on 7 May 1996.        On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application and on the 2 July 1996 the Commission decided that observations should be requested.        In their letter received on 5 December 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