FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20346/15
Stephen GALLI
against Malta
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 January 2018 as a Chamber composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Faris Vehabović,
Egidijus Kūris,
Iulia Motoc,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 July 2015,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Stephen Galli, has dual nationality, Maltese and American. He was born in 1964 and is detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility in Paola, Malta.
2. The applicant was initially unrepresented. Subsequently, he was represented by Dr V. Bugeja – from the legal aid office in Malta ‑ and was later unrepresented. The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr P. Grech, Attorney General.
3. The applicant alleged that he had suffered a violation of Article 3 in respect of the conditions of his detention.
4. On 25 February 2016 the complaint was communicated to the Government.
5. On the same day the applicant, who was unrepresented, was invited to appoint a lawyer and to return the respective authority form by 12 May 2016. Various problems arose in this connection (see paragraphs 8 to 10 below).
6. On 28 February 2017 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided that the applicant’s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta, should no longer represent or assist the applicant (Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court) and that the applicant should be allowed to represent himself (Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court). The President of the Section also decided to communicate a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention to the respondent Government.
THE LAW
7. Article 37 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”
8. Following communication of the complaint under Article 3 and a request to send an authority form, on 13 May 2016 the Court received an incomplete authority form. In consequence the applicant was again invited to submit a complete authority form by 16 June 2016. In the absence of a reply, the applicant was again asked ‑ by means of a letter, sent by registered post, on 11 July 2016 ‑ to submit the relevant form by 1 August 2016. It was noted that failure to return the form might lead the Court to conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases.
9. On 1 August 2016 the Court received a completed authority form designating Dr V. Bugeja as legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta. The applicant explained that both the prison authorities and his lawyer had made it difficult for him to obtain the document. After the Government’s observations were received, they were sent to the applicant’s legal representative on 13 October 2016 in order for him to submit the applicant’s observations in reply and just satisfaction claims on his behalf by 24 November 2016.
10. In the absence of any reply, it was noted in a letter sent by registered post on 7 December 2016 to the applicant’s representative that the period for submission of the observations in reply had expired and that no extension had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. It was also noted that, should there be reasons explaining why submissions on his client’s behalf were outstanding, he should inform the Court accordingly by 12 January 2017 at the latest, presenting those submissions by the same date. The President would then decide whether to accept them and add them to the file. From the postal information available to the Registry it appeared that delivery had failed twice as the addressee had not been available, and that the applicant’s legal representative had failed to collect the correspondence from the post office, despite three notifications to that effect. The correspondence was returned to the Court on 9 February 2017, having remained undelivered.
11. Given the repeated failings of the applicant’s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta, on 28 February 2017 the President of the Section to which the case was allocated decided that the applicant’s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta should no longer represent or assist the applicant (Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court) and that the applicant should be allowed to represent himself (Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court). The President of the Section also decided that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention, according to which the High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right. The Government were requested to comment as to whether the acts and omissions of the applicant’s representative appointed under the domestic legal aid system were imputable to the State, and in consequence whether there had been any hindrance by the State in the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, as ensured by Article 34 of the Convention. Attention was drawn to the fact that various similar problems had been encountered in cases pending before the Court in which the applicants were being represented by legal representatives from the legal aid office in Malta.
12. After the Government’s observations had been received, they were sent to the applicant – at that stage unrepresented, but who had been allowed to represent himself ‒ inviting him to submit observations by 30 May 2017. No reply having been received, it was noted in a letter sent by registered post on 18 August 2017 that the period for submission of the observations in reply had expired and that no extension had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. It was also noted that, should there be reasons to explain why submissions were outstanding, he should inform the Court accordingly by 15 September 2017 at the latest and present the submissions by the same date. The President would then decide whether to accept them and add them to the file. From the postal information available to the Registry it appears that the letter had been received by the Corradino Correctional Facility on 26 August 2017 and a receipt had been signed by NC 148. However, no reply from the applicant has been received by the Court. Thus, no submissions have ever been received by the Court in connection with his complaints.
13. The Court emphasises its concerns about the acts and omissions of the applicant’s representative appointed under the domestic legal aid system, which are similar to those described in some other applications brought before the Court where the applicants are being assisted by lawyers provided via the legal aid system in Malta, and the fact that such a situation could result in a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of an applicant’s right of application, as ensured by Article 34 of the Convention. However, given the applicant’s lack of response, and in the absence of any claim on his part and of his own motion that he had not received any correspondence from the Court ‒ which would indicate that the letters sent to him recently by the Court had not reached him ‒ the Court considers that, in the circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. The Court observes, moreover, that if the circumstances justify such a course of action, the applicant can request that the application be restored to the list of cases under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium [GC], no. 60125/11, § 39, 17 November 2016, and Mahamud Ahmed v. Malta (dec.), no. 68883/13, § 21, 3 October 2017).
14. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.
Andrea TamiettiGanna Yudkivska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy