SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 19504/92
by S.M.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in
private on 13 October 1993, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President
H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 13 November 1991 by
S.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 10 February 1992 under
file No. 19504/92;
Having regard to:
- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 14 October 1992 to communicate the case
to the respondent Government without requesting observations and to
adjourn it pending the outcome of Applications Nos. 14553/89 and
14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom;
- the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in those
applications on 26 May 1993;
- information provided by the applicant's representatives on 4 August
and 5 October 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1955 and resident in
Bellaghy, Northern Ireland. He is a labourer by profession.
He is represented before the Commission by Messrs. J. C. Napier and
Co, solicitors, now incorporated in the firm of Ms. P. Drinan, solicitor,
Belfast.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested under Section 14 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 by members of the Royal Ulster
Constabulary at his home on 7 November 1991 at 06.00 hours. He was taken
to Castlereagh Detention Centre where he was detained until the evening
of 11 November 1991 (exact time of release unspecified). He was then
released without charge. The applicant states that he was not brought
before any judicial authority and that he was interviewed several times
each day of his detention.
On 23 December 1988, prior to the applicant's arrest, the United
Kingdom had informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that
they derogated from the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention in
respect of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act 1984. This provision was replaced by Section 14 of the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, pursuant to
which the applicant was arrested and detained.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges that his arrest and detention were contrary
to Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. He claims that he was
arrested merely for the purposes of detention and interrogation.
The applicant submits that, contrary to Article 5 para. 4 of the
Convention, he was precluded from bringing any proceedings to determine
the lawfulness of his detention. The applicant also contends that,
contrary to Article 5 para. 5 and Article 13 of the Convention, he has
no enforceable right to compensation in respect of the other alleged
breaches of Article 5.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 13 November 1991 and registered
on 10 February 1992. The Commission decided on 14 October 1992 to
communicate the case to the respondent Government and to adjourn it
pending the outcome of two similar applications challenging the United
Kingdom's derogation of 23 December 1988: Applications Nos. 14553/89 and
14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom (Comm. Report
3.12.91), which had been referred to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Court gave its judgment in the Brannigan and McBride cases on
26 May 1993 (to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The applicant was
asked whether he wished to maintain his case before the Commission and,
if so, to submit comments on how his case could be distinguished from
those of Brannigan and McBride. On 4 August 1993 the applicant's
representatives replied that the application was maintained for the time
being while they tried to find facts which might distinguish their
client's case from those of Brannigan and McBride. On 5 October 1993 the
applicant's representatives informed the Commission that, having
consulted their client, they had "no instructions to proceed any further"
with the case.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant complained of a denial of
his right to liberty, without redress, on his arrest and detention under
Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
1989. Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the right to liberty, but
the Court has held that detention of the duration experienced by the
applicant is compatible with Article 5 of the Convention, given the valid
derogation made by the United Kingdom on 23 December 1988. In view of
the derogation, it also held that compensation under Article 5 para. 5
of the Convention was not called for, and that detainees in these
circumstances had a remedy at their disposal in the form of an
application for habeas corpus which satisfied the requirements of Article
5 para. 4 of the Convention in particular, and Article 13 in general
(Eur. Court H.R., Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May 1993, to be
published in Series A no. 258-B). The Commission also notes that in view
of this case-law the applicant does not propose to proceed with the
application any further.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does
not intend to pursue the petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para.
1 (a) of the Convention, and that there are no reasons of a general
character concerning respect for Human Rights, within the meaning of the
last sentence of Article 30 para. 1, which require the retention of the
application.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy