CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sE5B8ADA1 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s292CCFD { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s9C57A56F { width:204.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45495/99 by Linda ELDER against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows:       THE FACTS The applicant was a United Kingdom national who was born in 1972 and died in 2003. She was represented before the Court by Dicksons HMB, a firm of solicitors practising in Stoke-on-Trent, England. The applicant was committed to prison by a magistrates’ court as a result of her failure to pay a local tax, the community charge. She was not legally represented in the magistrates’ court. The High Court subsequently quashed the magistrates’ order committing her to prison. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention that her detention was unlawful and that she could not obtain compensation therefor. She also complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention about her lack of legal representation in the magistrates’ court. PROCEDURE On 3 June 2003 the applicant’s solicitors informed the Court that the applicant had died suddenly a few weeks previously. They asked the Court whether her application could be continued by her husband as the representative of her estate. The Court replied that her application would continue to be considered. On 3 September 2003 the applicant’s solicitors informed the Court that they had advised the applicant’s husband, as her next-of-kin, of the option of continuing with the application on behalf of the estate on three occasions. He had not replied. The applicant’s solicitors stated that they would therefore be advising him that, without further instructions, they would be unable to proceed with the application. On 16 October 2003 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the Court in the following terms: “We have written to Mr Elder on the 27 th June 2003, 15 th August, the 3 rd September and the 11 th September to advise him of the position in this matter. The letters have not been returned and we therefore conclude that he no longer wishes to pursue this application further. In light of the above and no instructions we request that the Court withdraw this case.” THE LAW The Court notes that the husband of the deceased applicant has not replied to her solicitors on four separate occasions in relation to the option of proceeding with the present application. The Court further notes that the applicant’s husband has not contacted the Court directly. In the above circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant’s husband does not intend to pursue the present application on behalf of the applicant’s estate. Furthermore, the Court does not consider that respect for human rights requires it to continue the examination of this application. It observes that the general principles relating to the issues raised have already been considered by the Convention organs, in particular in two Court judgments (see Benham v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III and Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 25777/94 and others, 12 October 1999, unreported). Moreover, many cases raising similar issues to those involved in the present application remain under the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the present application should be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President