FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7900/04
by Lance Roland SHARPE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 February 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Lance Roland Sharpe, is a British national who was born in 1968 and lives in Devizes, Wiltshire. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 and 29 September 2003, the applicant received two separate notices under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring him to identify the driver of a vehicle registered in his name that had been photographed exceeding the speed limit on 8 and 18 September 2003.
In response, he confirmed he had been the driver of the vehicle on both occasions.
In October 2003, the applicant was convicted of speeding in the Magistrates’ Court and fined GBP 60, with his licence to be endorsed with three penalty points.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that he had been subject to compulsion to give incriminating evidence in violation of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self‑incrimination.
THE LAW
On 6 July 2007, the Court wrote to the applicant and the Government requesting their comments in light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment in O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, ECHR 2007‑... before 10 September 2007.
The Government submitted their comments on 9 September 2007. No comments were received from the applicant.
A second letter was sent to the applicant by registered post on 25 September 2007 in which his 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. The applicant did not reply.
The Court considers that, in these 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. 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.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy