FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 61892/00
by Brian Anthony HILL
against Spain
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 December 2001 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsE. Palm,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 1999 and registered on 17 October 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Brian Anthony Hill, is a British national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Gloucester (UK).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 November 1986, the Provincial High Court of Valencia convicted the applicant and his brother of arson and sentenced them to a term of imprisonment of six years and one day. The applicant lodged an appeal (recurso de casación) to the Spanish Supreme Court. On 6 July 1988, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The amparo appeal to the Constitutional Court was rejected on 8 May 1989.
On 1 October 1992, the applicant and his brother submitted an application to the UN Human Rights Committee complaining that their right to a fair trial had been breached by the Spanish courts, namely the Provincial High Court of Valencia. Invoking several provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they complained of the judicial authorities’ repeated refusal to grant bail before the trial, of the lack of competent interpreters during the interrogation by the police, that during the trial the legal aid lawyer had not defended them properly, and that his brother had been denied the right to defend himself in person.
On 2 April 1997, the Human Rights Committee found Spain to be in breach of Articles 9 § 3, 10 and 14 § 3 (c) and 5 of the Covenant. In the subsequent response given to the Human Rights Committee’ findings, the Spanish Government, on 9 October 1997, guaranteed the applicant the right to administrative and judicial redress by the way of domestic legal procedures and, if necessary, by means of supranational organisations.
On 10 June 1998, the applicant instituted two sets of proceedings. First, he claimed compensation from the Ministry of Justice for the defective operation of the machinery of justice under sections 292 and seq., of the Judicature Act (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial LOPJ). This appeal is still pending. Secondly, he lodged a judicial appeal with the Provincial High Court of Valencia asking for the annulment of the criminal proceedings. On 12 November 1999, the Provincial High Court of Valencia rejected the appeal on the ground that it had not been lodged within the specified time limit of five years after the notification of the judgment of 20 November 1986. Invoking Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution (right to a fair trial), the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. By a decision of 13 November 2000, the Constitutional Court rejected the amparo appeal. The Court declared that granting compensation for the defective operation of the machinery of justice could be considered in certain circumstances as effective reparation in the case of a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution. However, when a person had been deprived of his liberty as in the present case, the grant of compensation was not the most appropriate way of remedying the infringement of fundamental rights. In these cases, the nullity appeal was not the only possibility and the applicant had at his disposal either an application for a retrial (recurso de revisión) or an application based on judicial error. The court came to the conclusion that the alleged violation could still be remedied. Consequently, it rejected the amparo appeal for non-exhaustion.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that Spanish legislation does not provide him with an effective remedy to enforce the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee. He also considers that the unreasonable time taken to give an answer to his claims has subjected him to unnecessary and continuing moral injury and mental anguish contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that Spanish legislation does not provide him with an effective remedy to enforce the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee. He also alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows :
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
Article 3 prohibits torture as well as any inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention reads as follows :
“2. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that
(...)
(b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information.”
The Court notes that it appears from the file that the applicant and his brother introduced an application with the UN Human Rights Committee set up under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights complaining that their right to a fair trial had been breached by the Spanish courts, namely the Provincial High Court of Valencia. The Court observes that, on 2 April 1997, the Human Rights Committee gave its view on the case, finding Spain to be in breach of several provisions of the Covenant. In order to execute this decision, the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings before the Spanish authorities which have still not ended. The Court notes that the present application does not concern the breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention in the framework of the criminal proceedings against him in the Provincial High Court of Valencia. The complaints submitted to the Court concern the execution of the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee finding a violation of several rights guaranteed by the International Covenant.
The Court does not need to decide whether the present complaints could be rejected as being substantially the same as those submitted to the Human Rights Committee within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention as the application is in any case inadmissible for the following reasons.
Insofar as the applicant complains that Spanish legislation does not provide him with an effective remedy available to enforce the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee, the Court notes that neither Article 13 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees a right to such a remedy. Consequently, this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.
Insofar as the applicant invokes Article 3 of the Convention, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy