Lexploria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 March 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

J. A. FROWEIN

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 6 September 1983 by

E.B. against United Kingdom and registered on

26 March 1986 under file No. 10869/84;

Having regard to:-

- The Commission's decision of 4 July 1984 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

17 July 1985 and the subsequent developments in the case;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the applicant, a

British citizen born in 1932 and resident in Jersey, who is

represented before the Commission by his son, may be summarised as

follows:

On 23 July 1977 the applicant was arrested and provisionally lodged in

custody under Art. 13 of the "loi (1864) reglant la procedure

criminelle". On 25 July 1977 he was charged with having stolen a

tractor and reversible plough in March 1976 and with fraudulent

conversion while acting as a liquidator of a company in January 1974.

The applicant was presented at the next sitting of the Police Court on

25 July 1977 when he was remanded in custody on surety of £2,000,

which money was provided the following day, when he was released from

custody. The provision for the surety continues to apply. Between

his release and 3 February 1978 the applicant was required to report

daily to the police headquarters and between 3 February 1978 and

10 May 1979, he was required to report weekly. On the latter date the

applicant was required to surrender his passport, and the reporting

requirement was removed.

On 22 November 1979 a further charge was made against the applicant

relating to the period between June 1976 and May 1977, alleging

fraudulent conversion of a sum of £10,000, to which the applicant

pleaded not guilty.

During the course of 1981 the applicant's passport was returned to

him. On 20 September 1983 the third charge against the applicant was

withdrawn and replaced by a further charge in similar terms. The

applicant pleaded not guilty to all three charges against him. It

appears that the police intensified their investigations into the

charges in February 1983, and in the autumn of 1983 the Jersey Courts

decided to proceed with the charges. The matters have nevertheless

not yet come to trial and in this respect the applicant invokes the

guarantee of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (Art. 6-1) which guarantees

a trial within a reasonable time. He submits that he has been kept

waiting for trial for a grossly unreasonable period of substantially

over six years and that given the straightforward nature of the

charges and the resources available to the States of Jersey there is

no justification for this. The applicant also invokes Art. 2 of the

Fourth Protocol to the Convention (P4-2) in relation to the

restrictions on his movement.

On 27 July 1984 the charges against the applicant were formally

abandoned.

On 17 July 1985 the competent authorities made an offer to the

applicant of an ex gratia payment of £5000 in full settlement of his

claims. The applicant's representative confirmed the applicant's

acceptance of that offer on 29 July 1985 stating:-

"(I am) ... able to inform you that (the applicant) is willing to

accept (the) offer in full and final settlement of this application."

A cheque for this amount was acknowledged by the applicant's

representative of 2 September 1985. He stated:

"As requested, I confirm receipt of the sum of £5000 on behalf of (the

applicant). I am now in a position to write to Strasbourg formally

advising the European Commission that a ... settlement in respect of

(the applicant's) application has now been reached."

On 21 February 1986 the applicant's representative confirmed to the

Commission that the applicant no longer wished to pursue the

application.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that despite being arrested and charged in

July 1977, and being subject to surety of £2000, and reporting

requirements to the police, he was not brought to trial, contrary to

Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (Art. 6-1). Proceedings were abandoned

in 1984 after what the applicant contends was an unreasonable delay.

The applicant invokes Art. 2 of the Fourth Protocol to the Convention

(P4-2) in relation to the restrictions on his movement consequent upon

the delivery of his passport to the police from 10 May 1979 until a

date in 1981.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 6 September 1983 and registered on

26 March 1984.

On 3 July 1984 the Commission decided to bring the application to the

notice of the resondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 (2) (b) of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure and to invite them to submit written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

After various extensions of time-limits the respondent Government's

observations were received on 26 July 1985.

However, on 2 December 1985 the respondent Government informed the

Commission that efforts had been made to find a satisfactory solution

of the applicant's complaints. As a result of these efforts the

applicant had been offered and accepted an ex gratia payment of £5000

in full and final settlement of his claims. By letter of

2 September 1985 the applicant's representative confirmed that a

settlement of the application had been reached. On 21 February 1986

the applicant's representative informed the Commission that agreement

had been reached between the applicant and the Jersey authorities and

that the applicant did not wish to pursue his application.

FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION

The applicant has complained of the length of time for which criminal

proceedings were pending against him and of the related matters.

However, it appears from the applicant's representative's

letter of 21 February 1986 that, following negotiations with the

Jersey authorities, the applicant's complaints have now been

resolved to his satisfaction and that he does not wish to pursue his

application before the Commission. The Commission finds that there

are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention which necessitate a further examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THIS APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI