Application No. 28133/95

by Margaret THOMPSON

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

14 September 1998, the following members being present:

MM S. TRECHSEL, President

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

D. ŠVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

C. BÃŽRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

Mr M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 27 October 1994 by Margaret THOMPSON against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 August 1995 under file No. 28133/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, an Irish citizen born in 1943 was the mother of Paul Thompson, who was killed on 27 April 1994 in Belfast. The applicant is represented before the Commission by Peter Madden of Madden and Finucane , solicitors.  The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

On 27 April 1994, at about 23.00 hours, a mini-cab driver for a catholic firm, received a call asking him to pick up a fare from 87 Springfield Park. Springfield Park is in West Belfast, a predominantly Catholic and nationalist area. Springfield Park is separated from the unionist area of Springmartin by a palisade barrier/fencing known as the "peace line" set up originally in 1969 by British soldiers to separate the two communities.

On his way to the address, the driver picked up his friend Paul Thompson. En route, having stopped inside Springfield Park, to talk to local residents, the car came under fire. The driver was injured and Paul Thompson was killed.

The local community of Springfield Park were aware that the assailants made their escape through a breach in the peace line. They organised a public inquiry to air issues of concern relating to the circumstances of the shooting.

The inquiry, chaired by a former judge from Wisconsin and Gareth Pierce, a solicitor, heard 15 witnesses over the period 17-19 September 1994. The witnesses were mainly local residents. While the RUC and Northern Ireland office were invited to participate, neither body attended.

Evidence was given at the inquiry that on the morning of 27 April 1994 residents had noticed that the gates in the peace line had been left open. Workmen had been carrying out work in the area. Ms. Murphy rang the Northern Ireland Office to seek re-assurance that the gates would be closed after the work was finished but was unable to reach anyone. Some hours later, she saw two men in the vicinity who appeared to be interfering with the barrier. She rang the RUC and spoke to an officer who assured her that he would contact the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that something would be done about the open gates. When nothing in fact happened, the local residents association circulated leaflets advising vigilance. Shortly after the shooting occurred, RUC and army personnel arrived but no steps were taken to pursue the assailants through the peace line.

The applicant has issued proceedings alleging negligence against the RUC. Legal aid for the proceedings was refused but the appeal against the refusal was scheduled for 30 May 1997 and the outcome pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the failure of the RUC or Northern Ireland Office to take appropriate action to protect Paul Thompson's life discloses a breach of Article 2.

She also complained that there has been no effective remedy in respect of this matter contrary to Article 13, since there has been no inquest and the system of inquests in Northern Ireland is ineffective.

Further, she invoked Article 14 in that Paul Thompson as a member of the Catholic nationalist community was afforded inadequate protection by the security forces in Northern Ireland.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 27 October 1994 and registered on

4 August 1994.

On 23 August 1994, in response to  a request by the Secretariat, the applicant's representatives stated that they would send copies of the writ and statement of claim against the RUC when these became available.

By letters dated 5 August 1996 and 17 October 1996, the Secretariat reminded the applicant's representatives of the outstanding information and asked whether they intended to maintain the application. By letter dated 11 November 1996, the applicant's representatives stated that no writ had yet been served but legal aid had been applied for. They stated the applicant wanted to maintain her application but requested an adjournment until the conclusion of the civil proceedings. By letter dated 16 December 1996, the Secretariat informed the applicant's representatives that the Commission was unlikely to agree to a prolonged adjournment and requested confirmation of whether she would agree to withdraw her application pending her civil action. By letter dated 3 February 1997, the applicant's representatives stated that they were seeking counsel's advice. By letter dated 10 March 1997, the Secretariat requested a reply.

By letter dated 24 March 1997, the applicant's representatives stated that a writ had been issued and that they were awaiting results of a legal aid application and the outcome of a related case. Following a request for further clarification from the Secretariat, by letter dated 5 June 1997, the applicant's representatives stated that an appeal against the refusal of legal aid was still pending and requested an adjournment of the application until the outcome of O'Dwyer and others v. RUC, which was subject to an appeal, in which the hearing was anticipated by December 1997.

On 8 September 1997, the Commission granted an adjournment until the outcome of the appeal and requested the applicant to keep it informed at regular intervals of the progress of the proceedings and provide it promptly with a copy of the appeal decision when it was pronounced. The applicant has not been in contact with the Commission since. By letter dated 26 August 1998, the Secretariat warned the applicant that in the absence of a response, the Commission might proceed to strike the case from the list.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that this application introduced on 27 October 1994 has been pending before it for a considerable period. It recalls that it granted an adjournment for the applicant to provide further information and submissions relevant to a pending case but that the applicant has failed to keep in contact with the Commission or to provide further information or submissions.

Having regard to the applicant's continued failure to respond and the time already elapsed, the Commission concludes that the applicant no longer intends to pursue her application at present. The Commission further considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the application.

It follows that the application may be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission

     (M. DE SALVIA)           (S. TRECHSEL)