CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 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. 27435/95                       by James Lockie THAW                       against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1997, the following members being present:                Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  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 21 March 1994 by James Lockie THAW against the United Kingdom and registered on 31 May 1995 under file No. 27435/95;        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      27 November 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 22 January 1997;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a British citizen born in 1923 and resident in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.        In March 1988, the applicant agreed to sell his house at 7 Kirkstone Gardens ("the property") in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy. However, on the date of completion, 15 July 1988, the applicant's solicitor advised him not to complete, since a bankruptcy petition had been presented on 23 February 1988 and all his property was therefore subject to bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant had already given the intended purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. F, the keys and they had moved into the property.        On 5 November 1988, the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, which had a mortgage over the property, ordered the applicant to give possession of the property within 28 days but did not then pursue proceedings.   Mr. and Mrs. F therefore continued to occupy the property without having purchased it and without paying rent.        On 1 August 1989, Mr. and Mrs. F took action to obtain specific performance of the contract for sale of the property. By letter dated 10 November 1989 the applicant's solicitors applied for legal aid to defend these proceedings. The applicant wanted the property to be sold on the open market by either the Building Society or the trustee in bankruptcy since he believed that a better price would now be achieved than the one he had agreed with Mr. and Mrs. F in March 1988. On 8 December 1989 legal aid was refused on the basis that inter alia the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being party to the proceedings.        On 18 May 1990 the Newcastle County Court ordered the property vested in the trustee in bankruptcy to be transferred to Mr. and Mrs. F upon payment of £34,000 plus accrued interest. On 20 February 1991, the Registrar of the High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy refused the applicant leave to appeal from that decision.   On 30 April 1991 the applicant lodged an appeal from the Registrar's order by way of an application to a single High Court judge of the Chancery Division. On 5 July 1991, the applicant appeared before the Vice Chancellor who overturned the order of 20 February 1991 and granted the applicant leave to appeal out of time against the order of 18 May 1990.   On 12 November 1992 a single High Court judge upheld the order of Newcastle County Court of 18 May 1990 and dismissed the applicant's appeal.   The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, the appeal being set down on 2 March 1993. In December 1993 the Civil Appeals Office, having been in contact with the trustee in bankruptcy, informed the applicant that the trustee in bankruptcy did not consent to the appeal proceedings.   The applicant sent a letter to the Civil Appeals Office, received on 6 January 1994, that made representations about his rights. On 13 January 1994 the applicant was informed that the Civil Appeals Office would liaise further with the trustee.   On 8 March 1994 the trustee further confirmed that consent to the appeal proceedings would not be forthcoming and on 9 March 1994 the trustee joined the other parties' (Mr. and Mrs. F) request that the applicant's application for leave to appeal be dismissed.    The Registrar of the Civil Appeals Office declined to authorise disposal of the matter by consent until further consideration could be given to whether the trustee was fully competent to join in a request for dismissal of the application.   On 9 October 1996 a single Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed, by consent, the applicant's application for leave to appeal.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains of the length of proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 21 March 19994 and registered on 31 May 1994.        On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the respondent Government and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 27 November 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicant replied on 22 January 1997.   THE LAW        The applicant complains that the length of proceedings exceeded a reasonable time, in violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows:        "1.    In the determination of his civil rights and obligations      ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a      reasonable time ..."        The Government consider that the applicant had no actionable claim in relation to the property.        The Government state that taking into account the complexity of the case, the proceedings, which they consider as commencing on 18 May 1990, were determined within a reasonable time.        The Commission notes that the proceedings began on 1 August 1989, which was the date when Mr. and Mrs. F sought specific performance of the contract for sale of the property.   On 9 October 1996 a single Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of 12 November 1992, thus terminating the proceedings.        The total duration of the proceedings was seven years and two months.        The Commission considers that, in the light of the criteria established in the case law of the organs of the Convention concerning "reasonable time" (complexity of the case, conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case), the application raises serious issues of fact and law, including the question of the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which cannot be resolved at the present stage of the examination of the application, but call for an examination of the merits.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,          DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,      without prejudging the merits of the case.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber