CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17888/03 by Louis CHARLEBOIS against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Louis Charlebois, is a Canadian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Epsom. The United Kingdom Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 25 and 26 August 2001, a car was detected speeding by automatic cameras. On 6 October 2001, the same vehicle was detected by automatic camera failing to stop at a red light. The applicant, who accepted that he was the owner or keeper of the car, was sent three notices, requiring him pursuant to section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide information about the driver on each occasion. The applicant refused to do so. On 26 March 2002, the Magistrates’ Court found the applicant guilty of three offences of failing to give information concerning the identity of the driver of his car. On each count, he was fined GBP 65, with GBP 35 costs, and three penalty points endorsed on his licence. The applicant appealed to the Crown Court, accepting the facts alleged by the prosecution and arguing that section 172 in requiring him to provide information infringed Article 6 of the Convention. On 12 July 2002, the Crown Court rejected his appeal, on the basis of the established domestic case-law on the point in Brown v. Stott [2001] 2   WLR   817 and R. v. Wilson ([2001] EWHC Admin 198). The applicant applied by way of case stated to the High Court, which on 14 January 2003 rejected his application.   COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that he had been subject to compulsion to give incriminating evidence in violation of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self ‑ incrimination. THE LAW On 6 July 2007, the Court wrote to the applicant and the Government requesting their comments in light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment in O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   15809/02 and 25624/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ ... before 10 September 2007. The Government submitted their comments on 9 September 2007. No   comments were received from the applicant. A second letter was sent to the applicant by registered post on 25   September 2007 in which his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant did not reply. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President