THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36366/97 by Wendy IRELAND against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 7 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr W. Fuhrmann , Mr L. Loucaides , Mr P. Kūris , Mrs F. Tulkens , Sir Nicolas Bratza , Mr K. Traja , judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 May 1997 and registered on 6 June 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Wendy Ireland, is a British national , born in 1950. She is represented before the Court by Anne Whitworth, a lawyer practising in Gloucester, the United Kingdom. The respondent Government are represented by Mr Martin Eaton, Agent, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 16 November 1993 a liability order fixed the applicant’s Council tax liability. Subsequently, she did not pay that tax.

On 29 November 1994 she appeared unrepresented at a committal hearing before the Gloucester Justices when she was committed to prison for a term of thirty days, the sentence being suspended as long as she paid a weekly sum of money.

The applicant complied with the payment order for a period of time but once she defaulted she was committed to prison by the Gloucester Justices at a hearing held in her absence on 23 October 1995.

On 19 November 1995 she was arrested and taken to prison. On 27 November 1995 the applicant obtained bail and leave to apply for judicial review of the Justices’ decisions.

In the context of those proceedings, the Justices signed a form of consent agreeing that their decisions of 29 November 1994 and of 23 October 1995 should be quashed.

On 29 November 1996 the High Court made an order quashing those decisions.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about her committal and about the lack of legal aid for the committal proceedings.

THE LAW

On 23 May 2000 the Court decided to communicate the application and the applicant’s representative was notified of this by letter dated 6 June 2000. That letter was returned to the Court marked “gone away”. A further letter dated 22 September 2000 informing the applicant’s representative of an extension of a time-limit which had been given to the respondent Government was returned to the Court for the same reason.

The Court then wrote to the applicant and to her representative by registered letters dated 28 March 2001. Copies of the Government’s observations and of the Court’s letters of 6 June and 22 September 2000 were enclosed, the applicant’s observations in reply to those of the Government were requested by 11 May 2001 and the applicant and her representative were warned that a failure to respond might result in the Court striking the case out of its list of cases on the basis that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the application.

The Court’s letter to the applicant was returned to the Court marked “not called for”. The applicant’s representative replied by letter dated 18 May 2001 indicating that she was without instructions, that she was not therefore in a position to make any submissions in reply to the Government’s observations and asking the Court take such decision on the file as it thought fit.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President