CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 28 octobre 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 }                          Application No. 28788/95                       by Josiah CLIFTON                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 28 October 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                  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 6 March 1995 by Josiah Clifton against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 September 1995 under file No. 28788/95;         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       8 November 1996 and the correspondence with the applicant;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1941 and residing in Redruth, Cornwall.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr Bryan Burton, a solicitor practising in Penzance, Cornwall.         The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.         The applicant was subject to community charge (poll tax) due to the local authority, Kerrier District Council.         Upon the request of the local authority on 20 November 1991, on 1 December 1993 and again on 9 February 1994 the Camborne Justices, sitting at the local Magistrates' Court, granted three liability orders in respect of the applicant's community charge arrears for an amount totalling £ 834.97.         On 15 June 1994, at a hearing concerning the reasons for the applicant's failure to pay the amounts due, the Camborne Justices sentenced the applicant to 28 days' imprisonment, suspended.         The applicant was recalled to the Justices on 20 October 1994. The Justices adjourned the hearing to 9 November 1994 in order to give the applicant one last chance to come to some arrangement with the local authority.         Thereupon the applicant paid £ 5 in each of the three weeks before the adjourned hearing.   The local authority accepted the money but allegedly refused to discuss any arrangement.         On 9 November 1994, at the restored hearing, the Camborne Justices found that the applicant had had enough chances and sentenced him to 25 days' imprisonment with immediate effect.         At the hearings on 20 October and 9 November 1994 the applicant was represented pro-bono by a local solicitor.         The applicant served 4 days in prison.   He applied for, and was granted, release on bail and leave to apply for judicial review before the High Court.         The application for judicial review was not opposed by the local community charge authority and the Magistrates' Court agreed to sign a consent order.   The grounds therefor have not been substantiated. On 13 July 1995 the High Court quashed the applicant's committal to prison.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention that his detention was unlawful.   He also complains under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention of the lack of compensation for the unlawful detention.         Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant submits that he should have been entitled to legal aid before the Camborne Justices.         The applicant refers to the Commission's report in the case of Stephen Benham (Application No. 19380/92, Comm. Report 29.11.94).   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 6 March 1995 and registered on 28 September 1995.         On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 November 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   On 3 December 1996 these observations were transmitted to the applicant who was invited to submit observations in reply before 23 January 1997.   This time-limit was thereafter extended to 24 February 1997 upon the applicant's request.         On 15 April 1997 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.         On 29 April 1997 the Secretariat wrote to the applicant noting that no observations in reply had been received and warning him about the provision of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   By letter of 13 May 1997 the applicant requested another extension of the time- limit for the submission of his observations.   This request was exceptionally granted and the time-limit was fixed for 24 June 1997. On 11 July 1997 the applicant requested again an extension of the time- limit for his observations in reply.   This request was refused.   The applicant was informed that if he nevertheless wished to submit his reply he could do so, and that the Commission would decide whether to take it into consideration.   The applicant was further informed that his application would be put before the Commission during its session beginning on 20 October 1997.   The applicant did not submit observations in reply.   THE LAW         The Commission notes that the applicant, who is legally represented, did not submit observations in reply to the Government's observations despite several reminders and despite the fact that legal aid was granted for the submission of such observations.         In these circumstances, the Commission concludes pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that it is, therefore, no longer justified to continue the examination of the petition. Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention which require the further examination of this application.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber