CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 janvier 1998

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                            FIRST CHAMBER                      Application No. 31188/96                        Stephen Jeremy Hughes                               against                         the United Kingdom                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 14 January 1998)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    THE PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1      (paras. 1-3)   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1      (paras. 4-7)   III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . .1      (paras. 8-18)   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . .3      (paras. 19-21)   APPENDIX: DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . .4   I.    THE PARTIES   1.    This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30 para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by Stephen Jeremy Hughes against the United Kingdom.   2.    The applicant was born in 1955 and last resided in Gosport. In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented by Mr. John Mackenzie, a solicitor practising in London.   3.    The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Ms. Susan Dickson, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.    The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of 9 April 1997, annexed hereto, and may be summarised as follows:   5.    The applicant was an officer in the Royal Navy and in 1994 he was charged (pursuant to the Naval Discipline Act 1957) with the civilian criminal offence of theft contrary to the Theft Act 1968.   6.    The applicant pleaded guilty at his court-martial and he was sentenced to, inter alia, 30 months imprisonment and to stoppages in pay. On appeal, the Naval Secretary reduced the sentence of imprisonment to two years and, subsequently, the Admiralty Board reduced the stoppages in pay.   7.    The applicant complains that he did not have a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law contrary to Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   8.    The application was introduced on 13 April 1996 and was registered on 26 April 1996.   9.    On 4 September 1996 the First Chamber decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   10.   In their letter received on 21 November 1996 the Government stated that they had no observations on the admissibility of the application.   11.   On 9 April 1997 the Commission declared the application admissible.   12.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 24 April 1997 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. By letter dated 30 May 1997 the Government stated that they did not wish to submit any further evidence or observations.   13.   Certain proposals for a friendly settlement of the case were subsequently exchanged between the parties. The last proposal of the Government was forwarded by the Commission to the applicant's representative by letter dated 21 July 1997. Having received no response, the Commission wrote to that representative by letter dated 7 October 1997 requesting confirmation of the applicant's position on the Government's friendly settlement proposal by 24 October 1997.   14.   The applicant's representative responded by letter dated 30 October 1997 stating that the applicant had moved without leaving a forwarding address and that the representative was not therefore in a position to take the necessary instructions.   15.   On 4 November 1997 the Commission wrote to the applicant's representative pointing out that, in such circumstances, the Commission could conclude that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing his application and could strike it out of its list of cases on that basis. Accordingly, the applicant's representative was invited to confirm by 7 December 1997 whether he had succeeded in locating the applicant.   16.   By letter received on 5 December 1997 the applicant's representative confirmed that the applicant had moved from his Royal Navy quarters in December 1996 without leaving a forwarding address with his representative and that the representative's correspondence had been returned from that address marked 'gone away'. His representative also confirmed that the applicant had not been in touch with him since he had changed address and stated that he had to assume that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the application.   17.   On 14 January 1998 the Commission decided to strike the present application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   18.   It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish it. The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:             MM    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                N. BRATZA                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    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   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   19.   The Commission notes that the applicant moved from his previous address in December 1996, that he has not left a forwarding address with his representative and that his representative has not heard from the applicant since he moved.   20.   In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) (Art. 30-1-a) of the Convention.   21.   Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 31188/96 OUT OF ITS LIST OF      CASES;        ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;        DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers      and the Parties for information, and to publish it.        M.F. BUQUICCHIO                        M.P. PELLONPÄÄ         Secretary                             President    to the First Chamber                  of the First Chamber