CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 février 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9975F4A9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34139A12 { width:6.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAF98D1B { width:7.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sADFBB2FF { width:7.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8C2BF086 { width:220.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10590/05 by Anthony Benjamin LEATHART against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Casadevall , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Anthony Benjamin Leathart, is a British national who was born in 1944 and lives in South Marston. He was represented before the Court by Tyndallwoods, a firm of solicitors based in Birmingham. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was, at the material time, a Wing Commander in the Royal Air Force. He initially claimed that he was dismissed from the armed forces on 9 June 1993 pursuant to their policy in relation to sexual orientation. The applicant submitted a claim to the London (South) Employment Tribunal arguing that his dismissal, and the treatment to which he was subjected, breached the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”). As a result of the House of Lords’ judgment in MacDonald (AP) (Appellant) v. Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) dated 19   June   2003, the applicant withdrew his domestic proceedings on 13   November   2003. B.     Relevant domestic and practice The law and practice in force at the relevant time and concerning the dismissal of homosexuals from the armed forces is described in the judgments of the Court in the cases of Lustig-Prean and Beckett v.   the United Kingdom (nos.   31417/96 and 32377/96, 27   September 1999) and Smith and Grady v.   the United Kingdom (nos.   33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR   1999-VI). COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about:   (a)   his dismissal from the armed forces pursuant to the absolute policy against homosexuals in those forces; and   (b)   the harassment to which he had been subjected in the process of his dismissal. THE LAW Article 37 § 1 of the Convention 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; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.” On 20 December 2005 the respondent Government was given notice of the application and was requested to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. By letter dated 9 May 2006 the Government forwarded their submissions. They contended that the applicant had not been dismissed because he was homosexual, or pursuant to any policy specifically relating to homosexuality. Instead, according to the Government, he was dismissed because he had committed an act of gross indecency and, consequently, he was not deemed suitable for continued service as an officer. By letter dated 10 August 2006 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant no longer wished to proceed with his application and enclosed a letter from the applicant confirming this. The Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). The Court finds that, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require a continuation of the examination of the case. It, therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President