AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 12548/86
by Patrick Joseph CONROY
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 9 November 1987, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
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. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 24 October 1986
by Paatrick Joseph Conroy against the United Kingdom and registered
on 17 November 1986 under file N° 12548/86;
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
The applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1922 and lives in
Manchester, United Kingdom.
The applicant has previously lodged an application with the
Commission (No. 10061/82) concerning his dismissal from employment in
1979. His dismissal was a consequence of expulsion from his trade
union SOGAT (Society of Graphical Allied Trades) following a
protracted dispute.
The Commission subsequently declared the application admissible
in a decision dated 5 July 1985 insofar as it raised issues under,
inter alia, Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. On 15 May 1986
the Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement
of the case and adopted its Report in accordance with Article 30 of
the Convention. The applicant's legal representative had indicated in
a telex dated 12 May 1986 that "agreement has now been concluded on
all outstanding matters".
Under the terms of the friendly settlement the Government
offered £38,150 "in full and final settlement of the claims made by
the applicant in this case". It also agreed to pay the sum of £1,518
(including VAT) in legal costs to the solicitor acting on behalf of
the applicant in the friendly settlement negotiations.
In letters dated 2 and 27 October 1986 the applicant
received after the above settlement from solicitors acting on behalf
of SOGAT a bill of costs for approximately £22,000 in connection with
proceedings that the applicant had taken against SOGAT relating to his
dismissal from the union. These proceedings had taken place in the
Manchester High Court on 21-25 January 1985 and in the Court of
Appeal some time in November 1985. Since legal aid had been withdrawn
by the Law Society the applicant had represented himself in these
proceedings.
No steps have yet been taken by SOGAT to recover the costs.
&_COMPLAINTS&S
The applicant complains of his continued harassment by SOGAT
and the failure of the respondent Government to control the power of
the union.
He invokes Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The applicant, who has been presented with a bill of costs by
his former trade union relating to previous legal proceedings which he
had taken against SOGAT, complains of continued union harassment and
the failure of the respondent Government to protect him. He invokes
Articles 10, 11 and 14 (Art. 10, 11, 14) of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
The Commission first observes that no issue arises in the
present case concerning the execution of the terms of the settlement
reached between the parties in the applicant's previous application.
Insofar as the applicant is seeking to reopen the complaints
raised in his previous application (No. 10061/82) the Commission
recalls that these complaints were the subject of a friendly
settlement approved by the Commission in its Report of 15 May 1986.
Such a settlement, freely entered into between the parties, brings to
a conclusion the legal issues in the case. It follows, therefore,
that the applicant's previous complaints cannot be reopened and that
his application must, in this respect, be rejected as being
substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by
the Commission within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b)
of the Convention.
Insofar as the applicant complains of continued harassment by
SOGAT the Commission recalls that it can only examine complaints
directed against the State, its organs and officials as opposed to
private bodies such as trade unions. This complaint must therefore be
rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the
Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
Finally, insofar as the applicant alleges that the United
Kingdom is responsible for the acts of SOGAT the Commission considers
that the issue of the presentation of the bill of costs in the
circumstances of the case is not a matter which raises an issue under
the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention or a matter which
engages the State responsibility of the respondent Government.
Accordingly this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)