THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35694/97
by David, Frederick, Aidan, Duncan, Howard and Amanda BARCLAY
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 March 1997 and registered on 22 April 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first and second applicants are twin brothers, born in 1934. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are the first applicant's sons, and were born in 1956, 1961 and 1959 respectively. The sixth applicant is the second applicant's daughter, and was born in 1978. The first, second, fourth and fifth applicants' main place of residence is Monaco, and the third and sixth applicants' main place of residence is England.
The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr C. Dodson, solicitor of Messrs Lovell White Durrant, London, and Mr D. Pannick, QC. The facts of the application, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In October 1993, the first and second applicants bought Brecqhou, an island in the Channel Islands.
Under the rules relating to tenure and disposal of land in Brecqhou, the first and second applicants are required to hold the island jointly. When the first of the two brothers dies, the island will pass to his sibling survivor and, on that person's demise, the island will pass, by primogeniture, to his eldest male child.
COMPLAINTS
The first and second applicants originally alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention, taken on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, again taken on its own and in conjunction with Article 14.
The third to sixth applicants, who have no proprietary interest in Brecqhou, originally alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 21 March 1997 before the European Commission of Human Rights. It was registered on 22 April 1997.
On 23 October 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government. The Government’s written observations were submitted on 13 March 1998 and the applicants’ reply on 27 July 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 15 November 1999, the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that, in the light of proposed law reforms in Sark and a favourable domestic decision, the applicants had agreed with the Government that the application should be discontinued. The applicants, accordingly, did not wish to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).
On 28 January 2000 the Government submitted a copy of the Real Property (Succession) (Sark) Law 1999, which had entered into force on 14 December 1999.
In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy