CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 septembre 2000

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75748449 { width:49.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8B1E4AB6 { width:261.17pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3B7FF8FC { width:51.88pt; display:inline-block } .s3036B747 { width:52.84pt; display:inline-block } .s181A2870 { width:45.3pt; display:inline-block } .s93FFB312 { width:49.2pt; display:inline-block } .s2487BEBB { width:66.2pt; display:inline-block } .s5661FA7B { width:44.88pt; display:inline-block } .sC7BE26E0 { width:72.2pt; display:inline-block } .s637F546E { width:25.5pt; display:inline-block } .s6214BB3A { width:59.52pt; display:inline-block } .s6A53D1A2 { width:66.17pt; display:inline-block } .sFFFED98 { width:61.52pt; display:inline-block } .s9972FB2B { width:69.52pt; display:inline-block } .sA4DA96E3 { width:32.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1D2C85D0 { width:35.52pt; display:inline-block } .s8F3D1D27 { width:38.2pt; display:inline-block } .s42FDDCEE { width:46.18pt; display:inline-block } .sD24F9ADC { width:5.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA6886812 { width:47.55pt; display:inline-block } .s3D133012 { width:52.83pt; display:inline-block } .sFF415C7 { width:37.51pt; display:inline-block } .sDBECF54A { width:56.88pt; display:inline-block } .s74DA9319 { width:54.84pt; display:inline-block } .s6DC07B2C { width:54.87pt; display:inline-block } .sDAAECEF3 { width:34.18pt; display:inline-block } .s5292FFFE { width:21.51pt; display:inline-block } .s7D665317 { width:44.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6A296D71 { width:7.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE3CC4940 { width:40.18pt; display:inline-block } .s23F1F5BD { width:43.53pt; display:inline-block } .sCB2E351E { width:55.51pt; display:inline-block } .s22992F2F { width:60.86pt; display:inline-block } .sA2FDEFA8 { width:78.21pt; display:inline-block } .s16037540 { width:22.19pt; display:inline-block } .s8949978E { width:41.53pt; display:inline-block } .s8DF320BE { width:48.85pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION   DECISION   Application nos. 29047/95 and others by Jerry BAKER and Others against the United Kingdom     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   J.-P. Costa, President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann,   Mr   P. Kūris,   Mrs   F. Tulkens,   Mr   K. Jungwiert,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza,   Mr   K. Traja, judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above applications introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights and registered on dates as indicated in the annex to this decision,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicants are United Kingdom   nationals. Twenty one of them were represented before the Court by HMB solicitors, practising in Stoke on Trent. Mr Perry was represented by Ms D. Still, a solicitor practising in Rochdale. The remaining four applicants were represented by Ms A. Whitworth, a solicitor practising in Gloucester.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of a community charge (poll tax). At the time, most of the applicants were dependent on State benefits or living on a low income. In separate proceedings in magistrates’ courts it was established that the non-payment was due to the debtor’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Each of the applicants was thereupon committed to a term of imprisonment. Legal aid was not available and the applicants were not legally represented before the magistrates’ courts. Following judicial review proceedings most of the applicants obtained orders quashing the magistrates’ imprisonment decisions.   COMPLAINTS     The applicants complain under Article   5 of the Convention that their imprisonment was unlawful and under Article 6 of the Convention that legal aid was not available to them in the proceedings before the magistrates’ courts.   PROCEDURE     The applications were introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on the dates indicated in the annex to this decision. On different dates in 1997 the Commission decided to give notice to the respondent Government of the applications without inviting them to submit written observations until the adoption of reports or decisions in a group of similar cases. The Commission did not take further action until 1   November 1998. On that date pursuant to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol no. 11 to the Convention the applications fell to be examined by the Court. They were assigned to the Third Section.     On 12 October 1999 the Court delivered judgment in the case of Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom (25277/94 et al.), which concerned part of a group of similar cases, pending the resolution of which the present applications under consideration were adjourned.     By letter of 15 December 1999 the Court invited the applicants to state whether or not, having regard to the Perks and Others judgment, they wished to pursue their applications.     None of the applicants replied to the Court’s letter. A letter dated 16 February 2000 from HMB solicitors only requested the complete list of the “poll tax” applications pending before the Court.   THE LAW     Having regard to the similarities in the applications, the Court considers it appropriate to join them, in accordance with Rule 43 § 1 of the Rules of Court.     Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:   “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that   (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; … .”     Having regard to the correspondence with the applicants, the Court finds that they do not intend to pursue their applications within the meaning of the above Article.     The Court also notes that it has expressed its opinion on complaints almost identical to those raised by the applicants (see the Benham v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10   June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 738, and the Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 12 October 1999, to be published in Reports 1999). The Court finds, therefore, no reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which require the further examination of the present applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).     Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO JOIN the applications;   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATIONS OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES .             S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President   A N N E X     LIST OF APPLICATIONS   Appl. no .   Name of appl .   Introduction date   Registration date   29047/95   Jerry Baker   3 October 1995   2 November 1995 29048/95   Barry Pike   3 October 1995   2 November 1995 29049/95   Rodney Spanswick   3 October 1995   2 November 1995 29050/95   Sean Traves   3 October 1995   2 November 1995 29304/95   Jane Count   3 October 1995   2 November 1995 30068/96   Patrick Lynn   3 October 1995   5 February 1996 30396/96   John Perry   16 February 1996   6 March 1996 30477/96   Mary Hargreaves   10 January 1996   18 March 1996 30986/96   Michael Foston   10 January 1996   11 April 1996 30987/96   Andrea Louise Houson   10 January 1996   11 April 1996 30988/96   Tracey Buffong   28 March 1996   11 April 1996 31722/96   John Johnson   10 January 1996   4 June 1996 31723/96   Brian Winstanley   17 April 1996   4 June 1996 32398/96   Karen Hannis   18 June 1996   24 July 1996 32399/96   Altamont Wallace   17 June 1996   24 July 1996 32401/96   Stuart Daniel Martin   5 January 1996   24 July 1996 32406/96   Amanda Helen Walker   26 January 1996   24 July 1996 32848/96   Richard Mighton   16 August 1996   3 September 1996 32850/96   Michael Bush   16 August 1996   3 September 1996 33474/96   Mervyn Bold   21 February 1996   17 October 1996 34144/96   Willi Abel   24 September 1996   12 December 1996 34145/96   Michelle Nimrod   24 September 1996   12 December 1996 34146/96   Joseph Smithy   24 September 1996   12 December 1996