THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42007/98 by Vernon John DAVIES against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) , sitting on 26 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa, President ,

Mr W. Fuhrmann,

Mr L. Loucaides,

Mr P. KÅ«ris,

Sir Nicolas Bratza,

Mr K. Traja,

Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, judges ,

and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 June 1998 and registered on 1 July 1998,

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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are United Kingdom citizen, born in 1944. He lives in Essex, and is represented before the Court by Messrs Peters and Peters, solicitors, of London, and by Mr J.P. Gardner, solicitor, of London.

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

On 1 July 1992 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (“the Secretary of State”) issued proceedings (“the Section 6 proceedings”) under Section 6 of the Company Directors (Disqualification) Act 1986 (“CDDA”). Section 6 of the CDDA provides that, where a person has acted as director of a company which has become insolvent, or where his conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, the court may make a disqualification order prohibiting various forms of involvement in the management of companies for a period between two to 15 years. The applicant was the respondent to those proceedings, together with four other individuals.

On 27 January 1994 the Registrar granted a request by the Secretary of State for an extension of time for serving evidence. Appeals against the decision of 27 January 1994 were dismissed  by the High Court in May 1995 and by the Court of Appeal in May 1996.

On 13 March 1995 the Secretary of State issued separate proceedings in relation to a different group of companies (“the Section 8 proceedings”) under Section 8 of the CDDA against the applicant and eight other respondents. Section 8 of the CDDA provides that, where inspectors have made a report under Section 437 of the Companies Act and it is expedient in the public interest, the court may, on application by the Secretary of State, make a disqualification order for a period of up to 15 years.

In October 1996 the applicant applied for a stay of the Section 8 proceedings on the ground that the applicant was prepared to give permanent undertakings that he would no longer act as a company director. On 5 November 1996 the applicant applied for a stay of both proceedings and for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to accept undertakings in lieu of both the Section 6 and the Section 8 proceedings. The two applications were consolidated.  The stay was refused and the judicial review application were dismissed by the High Court on 24 November 1996. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 19 November 1997.

On 30 April 1997 an application by one of the respondents to the Section 8 proceedings, M, for part of the evidence in the proceedings to be struck out, was refused. On 21 May 1997 M made a further application to challenge a refusal by the Secretary of State to exclude certain evidence. That application was refused on 18 December 1997, and M’s appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 19 January 1998 and by the House of Lords on 29 March 1998.

In the meantime, on 12 January 1998, the date set down for the trial in the Section 8 proceedings, the applicant and the Secretary of State made a joint application to the court under the so-called Carecraft procedure (after the case of Re Carecraft Construction Co. Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 172, in which the procedure was described). In the application, the applicant and the Secretary of State agreed that, if the court approved, a disqualification order could be made for six years on the basis of undisputed (but not agreed) facts. An order would be made for the applicant to pay £196,000 in respect of the Secretary of State’s costs, which would reflect the fact that the applicant had also been subject to the Section 6 proceedings. The Section 6 proceedings themselves would remain unresolved.

The court approved the proposals made by the applicant and the Secretary of State, and the applicant was disqualified from involvement in the management of companies for a period of six years, and ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant makes a number of complaints about the proceedings. He contends that the proceedings determined his civil rights in a manner which was unfair and contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and in addition violated Article 8 of the Convention. He claims that the mounting of two sets of proceedings against him - together with the report prepared by inspectors in the Section 8 proceedings - amounted to a disproportionate attack on his character which he was unable to counter as he was ultimately forced into dealing with the proceedings by way of the “ Carecraft ” procedure. He also claims that the Secretary of State’s refusal to accept his undertakings not to act as a director in future was not compatible with his Convention rights. The applicant also complains about the length of both sets of proceedings, referring again to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains about the length of both sets of proceedings, alleging a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1 provides, so far as relevant, that civil rights and obligations are to be determined “within a reasonable time ...”. However, t he Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant also complains, by reference to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings and their impact on his private and family life. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, including its case-law in this connection and the contents of the case-file, the Court finds that these matters do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of both sets of proceedings;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President