P.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 19431/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1710
Document date: October 13, 1993
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 19431/92
by P.M.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 13 October 1993, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President
H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 January 1992
by P.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 23 January 1992
under file No. 19431/92;
Having regard to:
- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 14 October 1992 to communicate the
case to the respondent Government without requesting observations
and to adjourn it pending the outcome of Applications Nos.
14553/89 and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United
Kingdom;
- the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in those
applications on 26 May 1993;
- information provided by the applicant's representatives on
4 August and 5 October 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1958 and resident in
Toomebridge, Northern Ireland. He is an insurance manager by
profession.
He is represented before the Commission by Messrs. J. C. Napier
and Co, solicitors, now incorporated in the firm of Ms. P. Drinan,
solicitor, Belfast.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested under Section 14 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 by members of the Royal
Ulster Constabulary at his home on 7 November 1991 at 02.35 hours. He
was taken to Castlereagh Detention Centre where he was detained until
the evening of 11 November 1991 (exact time of release unspecified).
He claims to have been detained for 4 days and 17 hours. He was then
released without charge. The applicant states that he was not brought
before any judicial authority and that he was interviewed several times
each day of his detention.
On 23 December 1988, prior to the applicant's arrest, the United
Kingdom had informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
that they derogated from the requirements of Article 5 of the
Convention in respect of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism
(Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. This provision was replaced by Section
14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989,
pursuant to which the applicant was arrested and detained.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges that his arrest and detention were contrary
to Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. He claims that he
was arrested merely for the purposes of detention and interrogation.
The applicant submits that, contrary to Article 5 para. 4 of the
Convention, he was precluded from bringing any proceedings to determine
the lawfulness of his detention. The applicant also contends that,
contrary to Article 5 para. 5 and Article 13 of the Convention, he has
no enforceable right to compensation in respect of the other alleged
breaches of Article 5.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 14 January 1992 and registered
on 23 January 1992. The Commission decided on 14 October 1992 to
communicate the case to the respondent Government and to adjourn it
pending the outcome of two similar applications challenging the United
Kingdom's derogation of 23 December 1988: Applications Nos. 14553/89
and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom (Comm. Report
3.12.91), which had been referred to the European Court of Human
Rights.
The Court gave its judgment in the Brannigan and McBride cases
on 26 May 1993 (to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The applicant
was asked whether he wished to maintain his case before the Commission
and, if so, to submit comments on how his case could be distinguished
from that of Brannigan and McBride. On 4 August 1993 the applicant's
representatives replied that the application was maintained for the
time being while they tried to find facts which might distinguish their
client's case from that of Brannigan and McBride. On 5 October 1993
the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that, having
consulted their client, they had "no instructions to proceed any
further" with the case.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant complained of a denial
of his right to liberty, without redress, on his arrest and detention
under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)
Act 1989. Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the right to liberty,
but the Court has held that detention of the duration experienced by
the applicant is compatible with Article 5 of the Convention, given the
valid derogation made by the United Kingdom on 23 December 1988. In
view of the derogation, it also held that compensation under Article
5 para. 5 of the Convention was not called for, and that detainees in
these circumstances had a remedy at their disposal in the form of an
application for habeas corpus which satisfied the requirements of
Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention in particular, and Article 13 in
general (Eur. Court H.R., Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May
1993, to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The Commission also
notes that in view of this case-law the applicant does not propose to
proceed with the application any further.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant
does not intend to pursue the petition, within the meaning of Article
30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, and that there are no reasons of a
general character concerning respect for Human Rights, within the
meaning of the last sentence of Article 30 para. 1, which require the
retention of the application.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)