Search
document

Document text Analytics

WARDLAW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10239/83 • ECHR ID: 001-45360

Document date: April 11, 1989

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

WARDLAW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10239/83 • ECHR ID: 001-45360

Document date: April 11, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 10239/83

Peter WARDLAW

against

the UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 11 April 1989)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1-3) .......................................... 1

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 4-5) .......................................... 1

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 6-16) ......................................... 1-2

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 17-19) ........................................ 3

APPENDIX I Partial Decision on admissibility ............. 4-13

APPENDIX II Final Decision on admissibility ............... 14-19

I. THE PARTIES

1. This Report, which is drawn up by the Commission in accordance

with Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, concerns the application

brought by Peter Wardlaw against the United Kingdom.

2. The applicant represented himself before the Commission.

3. The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Michael

Wood of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's Final

Decision as to the admissibility of the application of 10 July 1985,

attached hereto as Appendix II (pp. 14-19).

5. The pertinent facts and complaints may be summarised as

follows:

From 7 May 1982 to 10 August 1982, the applicant, who is

serving a 16 years prison sentence, was detained in the segregation

unit in Inverness Prison. The applicant complained that the

conditions of this detention violated Article 3 of the Convention and

that he had no remedy for these complaints contrary to Article 13 of

the Convention.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

6. The application was introduced on 6 November 1982 and

registered on 11 January 1983.

7. On 4 October 1983, the Commission decided that notice of the

application should be given to the respondent Government, pursuant to

Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and that

they should be invited to submit before 16 December 1983 their written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's

complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

8. The Government sent their written observations on 11 January

1984 after an extension in the time-limit and the applicant's

observations in reply were received on 29 February 1984.

9. The Commission considered the application again on 9 July 1984

and decided to adjourn the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of

the Convention and to obtain supplementary observations from the

Government on this complaint. The Commission declared inadmissible

the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention on the

same date.

10. The supplementary observations of the Government were received

on 26 October 1984. The applicant declined to make any further comment.

11. On 10 July 1985, the Commission declared the application

admissible as regards the applicant's complaints under Article 13 of

the Convention and decided to adjourn further consideration on the

merits pending its decision in the case of Boyle and Rice v. the

United Kingdom.

12. On 14 July 1986, the Commission decided to adjourn further

consideration of the merits pending the outcome of the case of Boyle

and Rice before the European Court of Human Rights.

13. Following the decision of the Court in the case of Boyle and

Rice on 27 April 1988 (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of

27 April 1988, Series A no. 131), the parties were invited to submit

any additional observations on the merits of the application they

wished to make. The Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28

para. b of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.

14. The applicant failed to reply to the letters from the

Commission dated 6 June and 20 October 1988. Subsequent to a

registered letter of 17 November 1988, it was discovered that the

applicant had been transferred to another prison. By registered

letter dated 12 December 1988, the applicant then was requested to

indicate by 15 January 1989 whether he wished to pursue his

application. No reply was received. By registered letter dated

6 February 1989, the applicant was informed that in the absence of any

reply by 1 March 1989 the Commission might conclude that he had lost

interest in pursuing the application and strike it off its list of

cases. No reply was received.

15. By letter dated 6 March 1989 the respondent Government were

consulted, in accordance with Rule 49 para. 2 of the Commission's

Rules of Procedure, as to striking the present application off the

Commission's list of cases.

16. On 11 April 1989 the Commission decided to strike the present

application off its list, in accordance with Rules 44 para. 1 (a) of

its Rules of Procedure. It adopted the present Report and decided to

transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the parties for

information and to publish it. The following members were present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

17. The Commission notes that the applicant failed to inform the

Commission of his change of address and that he has not replied to any

letters from the Secretariat regarding his application. The

Commission has not had any communication from the applicant since

13 May 1985.

18. The Commission finds in these circumstances that the applicant

has lost interest in pursuing his application and further considers

that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the

observance of the Convention which warrant further examination of the

application.

19. For these reasons, the Commission, having regard to Rules 44

para. 1 (a), 49 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

- decides to strike Application No. 10239/83 off its list;

- adopts the present Report;

- decides to send the present Report to the Committee of

Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties,

and to publish it.

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant