Application No. 20004/92
by R.J. and W.J.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
7 May 1993, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 9 March 1992 by
R.J. and W.J. against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 May 1992
under file No. 20004/92;
Having regard to:
- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
14 August 1992 and the letter from the applicants' lawyer dated
4 February 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, who are married, are British citizens born in
1955 and 1952 respectively. The first applicant is resident in Leeds
and the second applicant is serving a prison sentence in H.M. Prison
Wakefield. The applicants are represented by Mr. Victor Zermansky, a
solicitor practising in Leeds.
The facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as
follows.
The second applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.
The first applicant has a history of gynaecological problems and has
been advised that if she does not conceive in the near future it will
become dangerous for her to do so.
On 15 May 1990, the applicants applied to the prison authorities
for permission to carry out artificial insemination. On 5 July 1990,
their application was acknowledged and they were informed that it was
being dealt with and would be ready once advice had been received from
the department's medical directorate. Several Members of Parliament
wrote to the Home Office on behalf of the applicants enquiring as to
the outcome of the application, which continued to be delayed. On 19
November 1991, a letter was received from the Home Office explaining
that they were awaiting the outcome of a similar case before the
European Commission of Human Rights and also waiting to review their
criteria in light of this case and the Human Fertilization and
Embryology Act 1990.
On 13 February 1992, the Home Office decided, in light of the
existing policy, to refuse the applicants' application. The letter
stated that their case did not disclose sufficiently exceptional
circumstances to justify granting the application.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants submit that they wish to found a family. They
complain that they have been refused permission to carry out the
necessary artificial insemination treatment since they fail to meet the
exceptional circumstances required by the Secretary of State. They
invoke Article 12 of the Convention.
The applicants further complain that they do not have a remedy
as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the violation
of their rights by an uncoordinated review body which delayed their
decision for 22 months.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 9 March 1992 and registered on
18 May 1992.
On 30 June 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and to ask for written
observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
The Government's observations were submitted on
14 August 1992.
The applicants were granted three extensions in the time-limit
for submitting their observations in reply. However, by letter dated
4 February 1993, the applicants' solicitor informed the Secretariat
that he was no longer receiving instructions from the applicants.
The last time-limit for submitting observations in reply expired
on 15 February 1993. By letter dated 18 February, the Secretariat drew
this to the attention of the applicants and requested that they inform
the Commission by 1 March whether they intended to withdraw the
application. They were warned that in the absence of any response, it
might be assumed that they had lost interest in the application and it
could be struck from the list of cases.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that the applicants are no longer in
contact with their solicitor who, in the absence of instructions from
them, is no longer pursuing the case. Further, the time-limit for the
submission of observations in reply has expired and the applicants have
failed to reply to a letter from the Secretariat.
In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicants
by their conduct indicate that they no longer intend to pursue their
application. The Commission further considers that respect for Human
Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the
examination of the application.
It follows that the application may be struck off the list of
cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy