THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 36159/97

by P. A.

against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section) sitting on 6 July 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J-P. Costa, President ,

Sir Nicolas Bratza ,

Mr L. Loucaides ,

Mr P. KÅ«ris ,

Mr W. Fuhrmann ,

Mrs H.S. Greve ,

Mr K. Traja , Judges ,

with Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 27 May 1996 by P.A.  against the United Kingdom and registered on 21 May 1997 under file no. 36159/97;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1928 and living in Armagh in Northern Ireland. She was the wife of P.A.

She is represented before the Court by Mr G. O’Neill, a lawyer practising in Dublin.

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

On 17 May 1974 P.A. was killed in a terrorist bombing in Monaghan in the Republic of Ireland. The car used for the bombing was stolen in Portadown , Northern Ireland on the same day.

The Irish authorities conducted extensive inquiries but were unable to bring charges against any person. The files remain open. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) in Northern Ireland has conducted an inquiry into the theft of the vehicle and related offences which did not produce any results. However, there was no formal murder inquiry by the RUC.

On 6 July 1993 ITV, a television station in the United Kingdom, broadcast a programme in which the adequacy of the RUC inquiry was discussed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to conduct a proper inquiry into the death of her husband and to find and prosecute the culprits. She submits that there are no effective remedies available to her concerning this complaint in the United Kingdom.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to conduct a proper inquiry into the death of her husband and to find and prosecute the culprits.

The Court does not consider it necessary to examine the substance of the applicant’s complaints. According to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court "may only deal with (a) matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".

Article 35 § 1 refers to "the final decision" taken in the process of exhausting domestic remedies which are "effective and sufficient" for the purpose of redressing the applicant’s complaint (see, inter alia , No. 9599/81, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 42, p. 33). Where no such remedies are available, the six-month period runs from the date of the act or decision complained of (see, inter alia , No. 9360/81, Dec. 28.2.83, D.R. 32, p. 21).

The Court notes that the applicant submits that there are no effective remedies available to her in respect of her complaints in the United Kingdom. It also notes that the complaints in question are related to a specific event, the death of her husband, which occurred on an identifiable date, namely 17 May 1974. The Court considers that shortly after this event it must have been clear to the applicant that the United Kingdom authorities were not prepared to conduct a formal murder inquiry. In any event, the applicant must have become aware of the alleged failure of the United Kingdom authorities to co-operate in the Irish authorities’ inquiry at the latest on 6 July 1993 when the relevant programme was broadcast on ITV. However, the applicant lodged her complaint before the Convention organs only on 27 May 1996, which is more than six months later.

It follows that the application has not been lodged within the six-month period prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It must be, therefore, declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 thereof.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa

Registrar President