CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 3 décembre 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. 26064/94                       by Anthony William BROWN                       against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 3 December 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 5 December 1994 by Anthony William Brown against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 December 1994 under file No. 26064/94;        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 letters sent by the Secretariat of the      Commission to the applicant;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, a United Kingdom citizen born in 1967, resides in Devonport, Plymouth.   Before the Commission he was represented by Mr M. Phillips, a solicitor of Birmingham, and subsequently by Clyde Chappell & Botham solicitors of Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.        The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.        The applicant became liable to pay community charge (poll tax) on 1 April 1990. At the relevant time he was unemployed.        On 5 March 1992 the local Magistrates' Court committed the applicant to 14 days in prison for failure to pay community charge.        The applicant served one day in prison.   He applied for, and was granted, release on bail and leave to apply for judicial review before the High Court. He was not legally represented at the committal proceedings.        In the judicial review proceedings all parties agreed to settle the matter.   On 9 June 1994 the High Court delivered a consent order approving the settlement and quashing the applicant's committal to prison.        The High Court made no order for damages.   The applicant took counsel's opinion as to whether he had an arguable claim for damages under United Kingdom law.   In November 1994 he was granted legal aid for that purpose.   The opinion of counsel was that the applicant had no possible claim under United Kingdom law.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention that his detention was unlawful in that the court failed to have proper regard to certain legal requirements therefor.   He also complains under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention of the lack of compensation for the unlawful detention.        Under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention the applicant submits that legal aid was not available and that he was not legally represented at the committal hearing.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 5 December 1994 and registered on 21 December 1994.        On 28 February 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, without requesting written observations at that stage, pending the outcome of the case of Benham v. the United Kingdom (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, No. 10).   On 2 July 1996 the Commission invited the respondent Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 November 1996.   On 3 December 1996 a copy of these observations was sent to the applicant's representatives who were invited to submit, before 23 January 1997, their observations in reply.   This time-limit was extended to 10 March 1997, upon the request of the applicant's representatives.   No observations were received by the Commission.        By letters to the applicant's representatives sent on 25 March and again on 9 May 1997 by registered mail, the applicant was warned about the provision of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   No reply was received.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant, represented by solicitors, did not submit observations in reply to the Government's observations.   Furthermore, no reaction was received to two warning letters, the second having been sent by registered mail.        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