Search
document

Document text Analytics

P. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12506/86 • ECHR ID: 001-267

Document date: July 13, 1988

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

P. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12506/86 • ECHR ID: 001-267

Document date: July 13, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 12506/86

by P.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 July 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 18 July 1986

by P. against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 November 1987

under file No. 12506/86;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 13 July 1987 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibility and merits;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government

on 11 December 1987;

- the failure of the applicant's representatives to reply to

these observations or to correspondence from the Secretariat;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1953

and a sign writer by profession. He is represented before the

Commission by Messrs. G. Howard Griffiths and Co., Solicitors,

Abertillery, Gwent.

The applicant was in dispute with his local education

authority over his insistence on educating two of his children at home

rather than in state schools. The local education authority was not

satisfied with the standard of education offered at home, particularly

in respect of the eldest child.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the state of the English law on

education and the attitude, decisions and procedures followed by the

local education authority were in breach of Articles 1, 5, 6, 8 and 14

of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 18 July 1986 and registered

on 3 November 1987.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

13 July 1987. It decided to bring the application to the notice of

the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules

of Procedure, and to invite them to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government's observations were submitted on 11 December

1987 after an extension of the time-limit for their submission had

been granted by the President of the Commission. In these

observations the Government informed the Commission that the applicant

and his family had moved in August 1987 and that the children were

attending a state primary school in the new area under a different

local education authority.

The applicant did not reply to these observations and his

representatives failed to acknowledge any further correspondence from

the Commission's Secretary, including a second letter of reminder

sent by registered post on 16 May 1988.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant and his

representatives have not responded to the Government's observations on

the admissibility and merits of the case or responded to any further

correspondence from the Commission's Secretary. The Commission finds,

therefore, that the applicant has lost interest in his application.

It also finds that there are no reasons of a general character

affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the

further examination of this case (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure).

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant