CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 27 octobre 1983

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged by Mr John Fulton Orchin against the United Kingdom (Application No. 8435/78);   Whereas on 26 November 1982 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas, in his application introduced on 1 September 1978, the applicant complained that the proceedings against him had lasted an unreasonable length of time, invoking Articles 3, 6 and 14 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 14) of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 6 March 1982;   Whereas the Commission in its report adopted on 9 October 1982 expressed, as to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention, the unanimous opinion that there was no appearance of any breach of that article; as to Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention, the unanimous opinion that there was no evidence that the bringing of proceedings against the applicant, or their duration, was in any way motivated by his political opinions or status as a member of the protestant or loyalist community and that there was therefore no appearance of any breach of that article either; and as to Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, the unanimous opinion that the applicant's allegations that the charges were deliberately left hanging over him for improper reasons lacked credibility and did not warrant further investigation but, by thirteen votes to one, the opinion that the delay, which was due to administrative error or oversight, caused the duration of the proceedings to exceed a "reasonable time" and that there was therefore a breach of Article 6 (art. 6);   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;   Whereas during the examination of this case the Committee of Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it accepted the Commission's report, that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland had issued further instructions to his staff with the object of expediting trials and obtaining the prompt disposal of all pending proceedings, that a practice was now in operation whereby the listing of cases for trial on indictment, following the implementation of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, was the responsibility of an officer of the Northern Ireland Court Service and that it was the duty of this officer, for which he was responsible to the Lord Chief Justice, to list all cases committed for trial and have them brought forward for disposal;   Noting with satisfaction the new procedures that have been introduced;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention,   a.       Decides that in this case there has not been a violation of Articles 3 or 14 (art. 3, art. 14) of the Convention;   b.       Decides that in this case there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, and   c.       Decides that no further action is called for in this case.