Search
document

Document text Analytics

BOULLEMIER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30277/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3634

Document date: April 9, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

BOULLEMIER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30277/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3634

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 30277/96

by Anthony BOULLEMIER

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 14 February 1996

by Anthony Boullemier against the United Kingdom and registered on

23 February 1996 under file No. 30277/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission and the respondent Government's

indication that they have no observations on the admissibility of the

applicant's complaints;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1954 and resident in

Wiltshire. He is represented before the Commission by

Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The facts as

submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case.

In September 1994 the applicant, who was a Flight Lieutenant and

a commissioned officer in the Royal Air Force, was charged (pursuant

to section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955) with the civilian criminal

offence of theft (of a pocket survival tool from a United States air

base) contrary to the Theft Act 1968.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 6 December 1994, convened

a general court-martial to try the applicant on the charge. On

8 December 1994 the court-martial found the applicant guilty. He was

sentenced to be dismissed from the air force.

On the 14 December 1994 the applicant petitioned the Confirming

Officer in relation to his conviction. The applicant's conviction and

sentence were confirmed and promulgated on 23 February 1995.

In March 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction and sentence. By letter dated 25 May 1995 the

applicant was informed of the decision, taken by the Air Force Board,

to reject this petition.

The applicant applied to a single judge of the Courts-Martial

Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court against conviction. On

21 August 1995 this application was rejected, the decision being

notified to the applicant on 31 August 1995.

On 13 September 1995 the applicant applied to the full Courts-

Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal against conviction. On

22 January 1996 this application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice.

The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice"

contained in the judgment in the Findlay case (Eur. Court HR, Findlay

v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, to be published in

Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1997) and in its report on the

Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm. Report 25.6.96, unpublished).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that

he was denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial

tribunal established by law.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 14 February 1996 and was

registered on 23 February 1996.

On 12 April 1996 the Commission decided to communicate and

adjourn the application.

On 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request the Government's

observations. In their letter received on 7 November 1996 the

Government stated that they have no observations on the admissibility

of the application.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that he was denied a fair and public hearing by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Government

have no observations on the admissibility of the applicant's

complaints.

The Commission considers that the application raises complex and

serious issues under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which require

determination on the merits. It follows that these complaints of the

applicant cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other

ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant