Search
document

Document text Analytics

R.J. AND W.J. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20004/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1592

Document date: May 7, 1993

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

R.J. AND W.J. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20004/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1592

Document date: May 7, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 20004/92

by R.J. and W.J.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

7 May 1993, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 9 March 1992 by

R.J. and W.J. against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 May 1992

under file No. 20004/92;

Having regard to:

- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

14 August 1992 and the letter from the applicants' lawyer dated

4 February 1993;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, who are married, are British citizens born in

1955 and 1952 respectively. The first applicant is resident in Leeds

and the second applicant is serving a prison sentence in H.M. Prison

Wakefield. The applicants are represented by Mr. Victor Zermansky, a

solicitor practising in Leeds.

The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as

follows.

The second applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.

The first applicant has a history of gynaecological problems and has

been advised that if she does not conceive in the near future it will

become dangerous for her to do so.

On 15 May 1990, the applicants applied to the prison authorities

for permission to carry out artificial insemination. On 5 July 1990,

their application was acknowledged and they were informed that it was

being dealt with and would be ready once advice had been received from

the department's medical directorate. Several Members of Parliament

wrote to the Home Office on behalf of the applicants enquiring as to

the outcome of the application, which continued to be delayed. On 19

November 1991, a letter was received from the Home Office explaining

that they were awaiting the outcome of a similar case before the

European Commission of Human Rights and also waiting to review their

criteria in light of this case and the Human Fertilization and

Embryology Act 1990.

On 13 February 1992, the Home Office decided, in light of the

existing policy, to refuse the applicants' application. The letter

stated that their case did not disclose sufficiently exceptional

circumstances to justify granting the application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants submit that they wish to found a family. They

complain that they have been refused permission to carry out the

necessary artificial insemination treatment since they fail to meet the

exceptional circumstances required by the Secretary of State. They

invoke Article 12 of the Convention.

The applicants further complain that they do not have a remedy

as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the violation

of their rights by an uncoordinated review body which delayed their

decision for 22 months.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 9 March 1992 and registered on

18 May 1992.

On 30 June 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and to ask for written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government's observations were submitted on

14 August 1992.

The applicants were granted three extensions in the time-limit

for submitting their observations in reply. However, by letter dated

4 February 1993, the applicants' solicitor informed the Secretariat

that he was no longer receiving instructions from the applicants.

The last time-limit for submitting observations in reply expired

on 15 February 1993. By letter dated 18 February, the Secretariat drew

this to the attention of the applicants and requested that they inform

the Commission by 1 March whether they intended to withdraw the

application. They were warned that in the absence of any response, it

might be assumed that they had lost interest in the application and it

could be struck from the list of cases.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that the applicants are no longer in

contact with their solicitor who, in the absence of instructions from

them, is no longer pursuing the case. Further, the time-limit for the

submission of observations in reply has expired and the applicants have

failed to reply to a letter from the Secretariat.

In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicants

by their conduct indicate that they no longer intend to pursue their

application. 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 THE LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant