Application No. 14074/89
by J.R. and W.A.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 14 December 1989, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
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 20 July 1988 by
J.R. and W.A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 1 August
1988 under file No. 14074/88;
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 first applicant, J.R., is a citizen of the United Kingdom
who was born in India in 1927 and is normally resident in Fribourg,
Switzerland. The second applicant, W.A., is also a citizen of the
United Kingdom, born in 1928 and normally resident in London.
Before the Commission the applicants are represented by
Messrs. James and Sarch, solicitors, London.
The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the
applicants, may be summarised as follows:
On 17 October 1985 the plaintiffs in civil proceedings against
companies in which the applicants were involved, applied for the
committal to prison of the applicants for an alleged breach of
undertakings given to the court. The application was rejected on 17
February 1986, and a further motion was made on 5 September 1986,
allegedly supported by evidence of an inadmissible nature.
Interlocutory proceedings took place to determine the admissibility
of certain evidence, ultimately finding that the committal
proceedings took their character from the proceedings on which they
were based and were accordingly "civil proceedings". The rules on
admissibility of evidence in civil cases therefore applied.
On 9 March 1988, the Vice-Chancellor, in the trial of the
motion of committal for contempt of court, found the applicants guilty
of contempt and committed them to prison in absentia for periods of 2
years and of 6 months respectively from the date of their
apprehension.
The applicants are still at large.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained that the committal order against them
constituted an unlawful deprivation of their liberty, contrary to
Article 5 of the Convention.
2. The applicants also complained that the admission of hearsay
evidence of witnesses in the contempt proceedings without their being
subject to cross-examination by the defence constituted a breach of
their right to be presumed innocent, contrary to Article 6 para. 2 of
the Convention.
3. The applicants complained further that the admission of hearsay
evidence of witnesses in the contempt proceedings without their being
subject to cross-examination by the defence constituted a breach of
Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 20 July 1988 and registered
on 1 August 1988.
On 14 March 1989 the Commission decided that, in accordance
with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, the application
should be brought to the notice of the respondent Government and they
should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility
and merits of the applicants' complaints that they were not able to
cross examine the evidence admitted in the contempt proceedings.
On 26 June 1989 the respondent Government submitted their
observations.
By letter of 4 July 1989 the applicants were invited to submit
observations in reply before 22 September 1989.
In October 1989, after the expiry of the time limit, the
applicants were reminded of the time limit and replied "it is
anticipated that the complainants may be able to resolve the matters
which are subject to the above applications without further pursuing
the application to the European Court... to serve a reply at this
stage would seriously prejudice this position. We therefore request
that further time be allowed the compliance in order to serve their
reply...". That letter was dated 16 October 1989.
On 20 October 1989 the applicants wrote "we apologise for
not having previously reverted to you and for the reasons set out in
[our letter of 16 October 1989] we confirm we request an extension to
20 December 1989."
On 6 November 1989 the applicants were informed that it was
proposed to consider the application at the Commission's session
beginning on 4 December 1989, and were told that the President had
instructed them that, if they wished to make any submissions, they
should do so by 30 November 1989 at the very latest. The applicants
were warned about the consequences under Rule 44 para. 1 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure if the Commission concluded that they
did not intend to pursue the application.
The applicants acknowledged receipt on 15 November 1989 but
have not submitted any observations.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission finds that the circumstances of the present
case, namely the applicants' failure to comply with the Commission's
request to submit observations in reply before 22 September 1989, and
their subsequent failure to submit observations in reply before the
new and final time limit of 30 November 1989, lead to the conclusion
that they do not intend to pursue their application.
The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a
general character affecting the observance of the Convention which
necessitate the further examination of this case.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES
Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy