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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .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. 34047/03 by Barry O’BRIEN 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 1 October 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Barry O’Brien, is a British national who was born in 1946 and lives in London. 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 16 May 2001, the applicant received a notice of intended prosecution requiring him to name the driver of his car on 4 May 2001. On 4 September 2002, the Magistrates’ Court convicted the applicant of an offence under section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver of his car. He was fined GBP 140 and ordered to pay GBP 35 costs, with his licence to be endorsed with three penalty points. The applicant appealed to the Crown Court, invoking Article 6 of the Convention and claiming that the conviction infringed his presumption of innocence and the privilege against self-incrimination. On 14 November 2002, the Crown Court rejected his appeal, referring to established domestic case-law on the point in Brown v. Stott [2001] 2   WLR   817. It reduced the fine to GBP 80 and ordered the applicant to pay the Magistrates’ costs (GBP 30) and part of the costs before the Crown Court (GBP 150). The applicant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was rejected by the Divisional Court on 4 April 2003. 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