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. 31400/96                     by Andrew James WILSON                     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 2 May 1996 by Andrew James Wilson against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 May 1996 under file No. 31400/96;        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 1968 and resident in Middlesex. 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 June 1995 the applicant, who was a senior aircraftman 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 2 June 1995, convened a district court-martial to try the applicant. On 19 July 1995 the court- martial, sitting in Germany, found the applicant guilty and fined him £150.00.        The Confirming Officer subsequently confirmed the applicant's conviction and sentence and the applicant was notified of this decision on 22 August 1995.        On 29 August 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council against conviction. He argued that the finding of the court-martial was against the weight of the evidence and was unsafe and unsatisfactory. He submitted that there was ample evidence in the prosecution's case to support the argument of self-defence in that the victim was acting in an aggressive manner towards the applicant and was using foul, abusive and aggressive words towards him. By letter dated 15 November 1995 the applicant's representative was informed of the decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.        On 15 November 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court against conviction raising the same grounds as before the Defence Council. On 21 February 1996 this application was rejected, the single judge finding that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence and that there was ample evidence to support a conviction. The single judge added that the manner in which the court-martial was conducted could not be faulted.   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 2 May 1996 and was registered on 7 May 1996.        On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application and on 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request the parties' observations.        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