Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 13284/87

by G. & D.M.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 15 October 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

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 1 September 1987

by G. & D.M. against the United Kingdom and registered

on 12 October 1987 under file N° 13284/87;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

&-THE FACTS&S

The first applicant, a businessman born in 1920 who has both

German and British nationality, lives in London. His wife, the second

applicant, has British nationality and resides in London

This is the first applicant's fifth application and the second

applicant's second application to the Commission.

I.

Application No. 6309/73 against the Federal Republic of

Germany, which was introduced by the first applicant on 16 June 1973,

concerned the refusal by the German authorities to grant the first

applicant restitution in form of a loan. The application was

registered after the first applicant had been informed by the

Secretariat of the conditions for filing an application. The

Commission declared the application inadmissible on 12 December 1974

on the ground that, while such restitution proceedings could relate to

a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention, the application was inadmissible under Articles 26 and 27

para. 3 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

The decision was sent to the first applicant on 19 March 1975.

II.

On 22 March 1975, the first applicant visited, and wrote to,

the Secretariat, claiming that in its previous decision the Commission

had overlooked certain elements, and asking whether he could re-submit

his papers. The Secretariat explained to the first applicant the

conditions for filing an application, but the first applicant

persisted in pursuing his case. It was then registered as Application

No. 7745/76. In this application, he complained, in respect of the

Federal Republic of Germany, that the German authorities had refused to

grant him restitution by means of a loan. In respect of the United

Kingdom, he complained of the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the

procedures in which legal aid had been granted. On 11 July 1977 the

application was declared inadmissible, partly as being substantially

the same as the previous application within the meaning of Article 27

para. 1 (b) of the Convention, partly as being incompatible ratione

materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2, in that in civil proceedings no right to legal aid

was as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Convention. This decision was sent to the first applicant on 13 July

1977.III.

On 22 February 1982 the first applicant introduced a new

application with the Commission against the United Kingdom which was

registered under file No. 9875/82. Therein, he complained inter alia

that his lawyers had accepted a settlement in a negligence case brought by

him against a law firm and had therefore refused to carry out their

duties and thus barred him from pursuing his case in court. He

relied on Articles 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention. On 4 July

1983 the application was declared inadmissible as being manifestly

ill-founded since it did not generally disclose any appearance of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

In parallel proceedings, the second applicant introduced on 18

May 1982 Application No. 9876/82 against the United Kingdom. This

application concerned her retirement as a temporary officer from the

Civil Service, without having been reinstated as a civil servant, and

thus not being entitled to a pension. Before the Commission she

complained under Articles 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention that

her case was dismissed by the courts in domestic proceedings on the

grounds of her inability to act without legal help in court. She

also complained of the manner in which the lawyers had handled her

case. On 4 July 1983 this application was declared inadmissible as

being manifestly ill-founded, since it did not generally disclose any

appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention.

Decisions Nos. 9875/82 and 9876/82 were sent to the applicants

on 24 August 1983.

IV.

On 31 August 1983 the first applicant submitted further

statements to the Commission, whereupon he was informed by the

Secretariat that these issues had been dealt with by the Commission in

the previous two applications. On 24 September 1983 he informed the

Secretary that he intended to lodge a fresh complaint. He was then

informed of the conditions for filing an application with the

Commission. On 6 December 1983 the applicant also attempted to

introduce proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

Following further correspondence with the Secretariat and the

first applicant's second visit to the Secretariat in Strasbourg, a

new application which was considered as being introduced on 28

September 1984 was registered under file No. 11220/84 against the

United Kingdom. This application originated in bankruptcy notices

which the applicant's solicitors had brought against the first applicant

and, apparently, the second applicant for non-payment of outstanding

monies. Eventually, a disciplinary tribunal found that the solicitors

had not behaved in accordance with professional standards. The

bankruptcies were subsequently discharged. Before the Commission, the

first applicant complained of the unfairness of these and other

proceedings as well as of the English legal system, criticising

inter alia "the Law Society's monopoly on legal aid" and alleging

"the total lack of accountability ... in the whole of the British

legal profession".

On 3 March 1986 the Commission declared the application

inadmissible. Insofar as the complaint related to general matters

concerning the English legal system, the Commission found that this

part of the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the

provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2.

In respect of the complaint that the first applicant was denied legal

aid the Commission found that this complaint was partly substantially

the same as Application No. 9875/82 within the meaning of Article 27

para. 1 (b) of the Convention, and partly manifestly ill-founded since

adequate redress had been afforded in the domestic proceedings for the

applicant's complaints. This decision was sent to the first applicant

on 8 April 1986.

V.

On 2 December 1986 the first applicant wrote a letter to the

Secretary General of the Council of Europe in which he inter alia

requested his complaints to be admitted.

In an undated letter which was received by the Secretariat on

13 March 1987 the applicants renewed their various complaints against

persons and authorities in the United Kingdom.

Between 1 and 30 September 1987 the first applicant addressed

himself directly to various members of the Commission. He complained,

apparently in the name of the second applicant, of the Commission's

decision in Application No. 9876/82 of 4 July 1983, in particular that

"the variance between that Decision and our Statement is so great that

each could be describing entirely different cases". In their letters

the applicants requested the members of the Commission for comments on

how they should now proceed.

These submissions have been transmitted to the Commission's

Secretary who, in accordance with Rule 12 (b) of the Commission's

Rules of Procedure, is the channel of all communications concerning

the Commission. They constitute a voluminous file from which it

appears that the first applicant's complaints originate in relations

with a bank as a result of which he was allegedly put out of business.

He then apparently brought proceedings against the bank. Later the

first applicant brought a negligence claim against solicitors acting

for him. In these proceedings he was represented by new solicitors

who accepted a settlement with which the first applicant apparently

disagreed. The other solicitors introduced bankruptcy proceedings

against him, though the bankruptcies were eventually discharged.

The second applicant's complaints originate in, and partly

concern, the fact that she was deprived of a civil servant's pension.

&-COMPLAINTS&S

In their various submissions, the applicants complain of the

alleged unfairness of the resulting domestic proceedings in which they

have been involved. They also complain, inter alia, of the

"etiquette restrictive practices" in the English legal profession, the

alleged Law Society monopolies, and the legal profession's freedom

from accountability for the consequences. The first applicant has

submitted that the British legal system "can suppress any action at

will". The applicants rely on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

&_THE LAW&S

The applicants complain of the alleged unfairness of the

procedure in which they were involved as well as of the alleged

deficiencies of the British legal system, in particular the British

legal profession. They rely on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

The Commission has carefully examined the above applications

and the separate complaints as they have been submitted by the

applicants. It has also considered these complaints against the

background of the applicants' previous applications Nos. 9875/82,

9876/82 and 11220/84 and notes that the subject matters of the

applications submitted by the applicants are essentially similar or

related to each other in that the matters complained of concern, on

the one hand, domestic litigation in which the applicants were

involved, and, on the other hand, the alleged deficiencies of the

British legal system, in particular the British legal profession.

The Commission further notes that since 1973, in connection

with Applications Nos. 6309/73 and 7745/76, the applicants have had

repeated opportunity to acquaint themselves with the procedure of the

Commission. Furthermore, on numerous occasions the first applicant

has been informed in detail, in the Secretariat's correspondence and

in personal discussions with members of the Secretariat, as well as

with the Secretary, of the operation of the Convention. All these

communications, as well as the Commission's decisions on the

admissibility of their previous applications must have made it clear

to the applicants that their present application is either

substantially the same as the matters already examined by the

Commission and contains no relevant new information within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, or that it is

manifestly ill-founded or incompatible with the provisions of the Convention

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

Having regard to this, and to the applicants' submissions, the

Commission finds that the applicants have abused their right of

petition within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2), in fine, of the

Convention. It refers in this respect to Nos. 5070/71, 5171/71 and

5186/71, Dec. 10.7.72, Collection 42 pp. 58 ff., and Nos. 5145/71,

5246/71, 5333/72, 5586/72, and 5587/72 as well as No. 5332/72,

Dec. 2.4.73, Collection 43 pp. 152 f., in which the Commission, declaring

the applications to be abusive, made the following statement:

"It cannot be the task of the Commission, a body which

was set up under the Convention 'to ensure the observance

of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting

Parties in the present Convention' to deal with a succession

of ill-founded and querulous complaints, creating unnecessary

work which is incompatible with its real functions, and which

hinders it in carrying them out."

The Commission finds that the same considerations apply to the

application of the present applicants. It follows that the present

application constitutes an abuse of the right of petition within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM