CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 juillet 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s59505BDB { width:35.69pt; display:inline-block } .s1CEF510A { width:289.52pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 36157/97 by Patrick DOYLE against the United Kingdom     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 6 July 1999 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   J-P. Costa, President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza,   Mr   L. Loucaides,   Mr   P. Kūris,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann,   Mrs   H.S. Greve,   Mr   K. Traja, Judges ,   with   Mrs   S. Dollé, Section Registrar ;     Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;     Having regard to the application introduced on 27 May 1996 by Patrick Doyle against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 May 1997 under file no. 36157/97;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is an Irish national, born in 1929 and living in Dublin. He is the father of Anne O'Brien.     He is represented before the Court by Mr G. O’Neill, a lawyer practising in Dublin.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     On 17 May 1974 Anne O'Brien and her daughters Jacqueline and Ann-Marie were killed in a terrorist bombing in Dublin. The cars used for the bombing were stolen in Belfast, Northern Ireland on the same day.   The Irish authorities conducted extensive inquiries but were unable to bring charges against any person. The files remain open. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) in Northern Ireland has conducted an inquiry into the theft of the vehicles and related offences which did not produce any results. However, there was no formal murder inquiry by the RUC.     On 6 July 1993 ITV, a television station in the United Kingdom, broadcast a programme in which the adequacy of the RUC inquiry was discussed.     On 21 February 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the High Court in the Republic of Ireland in order to force the Irish police to disclose information in its possession to the effect that the United Kingdom authorities had not fully co-operated with the Irish authorities in the murder inquiry. The applicant specified that this evidence would be used in the Convention proceedings.   On 27 August 1997 the High Court considered that this was not a case where it should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order discovery. According to precedent, this jurisdiction would only be exercised in cases where the plaintiff had clear evidence of wrongdoing but did not know the identity of the wrongdoer which was known to the defendant.   The decision of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court on 22 July 1998.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to conduct a proper inquiry into the deaths and to find and prosecute the culprits. He submits that there are no effective remedies available to him concerning this complaint in the United Kingdom.     THE LAW   The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to conduct a proper inquiry into the deaths of his relatives and to find and prosecute the culprits.   The Court does not consider it necessary to examine the substance of the applicant’s complaints. According to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court "may only deal with (a) matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".   Article 35 § 1 refers to "the final decision" taken in the process of exhausting domestic remedies which are "effective and sufficient" for the purpose of redressing the applicant’s complaint (see, inter alia, No. 9599/81, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 33). Where no such remedies are available, the six-month period runs from the date of the act or decision complained of (see, inter alia, No. 9360/81, Dec. 28.2.83, D.R. 32, p. 21).   The Court notes that the applicant submits that there are no effective remedies available to him in respect of his complaints in the United Kingdom. It also notes that the complaints in question are related to a specific event, the relatives' deaths, which occurred on an identifiable date, namely 17 May 1974. The Court considers that shortly after this event it must have been clear to the applicant that the United Kingdom authorities were not prepared to conduct a formal murder inquiry. In any event, the applicant must have become aware of the alleged failure of the United Kingdom authorities to co-operate in the Irish authorities’ inquiry at the latest on 6 July 1993 when the relevant programme was broadcast on ITV. However, the applicant lodged his complaint before the Convention organs only on 27 May 1996, which is more than six months later.   Moreover, the Court considers that the disclosure proceedings instituted by the applicant before the Irish courts cannot be considered an effective remedy for his complaints against the United Kingdom.     It follows that the application has not been lodged within the six-month period prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It must be, therefore, declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 thereof.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .         S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President