CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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. 10557/05 by Darren FORD against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   September   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 Darren Ford, is a British national who was born in 1967 and lives in Manchester. 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. 1. Background facts The applicant was, at the material time, a Sergeant in the Royal Military Police. He claimed that he was dismissed from the armed forces on 4   December 1998 pursuant to the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces. 2. Domestic proceedings On 14 November 2000 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 law and practice The law and practice in force at the relevant time 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 were given notice of the application and were requested to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. In their submissions dated 28 April 2006 the Government accepted that the tribunal proceedings lodged by the applicant were effective within the meaning of Article   35   §   1 of the Convention so that his claim had therefore been introduced with the Court within the six-month time-limit set down by the same provision. They further accepted that the applicant’s dismissal from the armed forces, as well as the investigation into his sexual orientation, violated Article 8 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13. By letter dated 21 September 2006 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that they no longer had instructions from the applicant and were not in a position to submit cogent evidence of his treatment, dismissal and resulting financial loss. On 29 September 2006 the applicant’s representatives were informed about the possible consequence of their failure to submit the observations requested. No response was received. Subsequent attempts by the Court’s Registry to contact the applicant, at his telephone number provided in his application, were unsuccessful. Finally, the applicant’s representative confirmed, by letter dated 23 July 2007, that they had no instructions from the applicant as to the loss he suffered as a result of being discharged from the armed forces. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Having regard to the Court’s findings in, inter alia , Lustig-Prean and Beckett v.   the United Kingdom (cited above) and Smith and Grady v.   the United Kingdom (cited above) as well as the Government’s admissions in their observations, the Court concludes that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols 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