FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32400/96
by Michael John VARLEY
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 6 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrG. Ress,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 30 September 1995 by Michael John Varley against the United Kingdom and registered on 24 July 1996 under file no. 32400/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 20 April 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a United Kingdom national, born in 1918 and living in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A.Particular circumstances of the case
On 13 July 1992 the local Magistrates' Court held a hearing in relation to the applicant's obligation to pay the community charge (poll tax). The applicant was not legally represented and protested against the unavailability of legal aid.
The applicant apparently paid a part of the tax due but did not discharge his obligation in full.
On 19 June 1995 the Doncaster Magistrates' Court, at a second hearing, found that the applicant's failure to pay the community charge was due to his culpable neglect and committed him to seven days' imprisonment. The committal order was suspended upon the payment of £1 per week and £55 in costs. The applicant was not legally represented. He submits that he had unsuccessfully applied for legal aid.
The applicant has not been imprisoned.
B.Relevant domestic law and practice
At the relevant time neither the civil nor the criminal legal aid scheme provided for full representation before the magistrates in community charge committal proceedings. The “Green Form” legal aid scheme provided two hours of help from a solicitor, and could include preparation for a court case, but did not provide for representation. An extension of the costs limit could be granted by the Legal Aid Board. The Assistance by way of Representation scheme (“ABWOR”) enabled the court, in limited circumstances, to appoint a solicitor who happened to be within the court precincts to represent a party who would not otherwise be represented. The appointment might be made either of the court's own motion or on application by a solicitor. The court was under no obligation to advise a party of the possibility of such an appointment. The Duty Solicitor scheme, which provided representation for the accused in criminal cases before magistrates, did not extend to community charge proceedings.
Following the Court's judgment in the case of Benham v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 738), where the Court found a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's complaint of a lack of legal representation, the United Kingdom enacted regulation 3(2) of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997, No. 997). Under that provision, with effect from 1 June 1997, any person whose financial resources are such as to make him eligible is entitled to assistance by way of representation in proceedings before a magistrates' court in which he is at risk of a term of imprisonment as a result of his failure to pay any sum which he has been ordered to pay.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant invokes Articles 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Convention. He states inter alia that he is constantly persecuted by the community charge authorities, that he did not have legal aid, and that the Magistrates' Court did not accept some of his written submissions.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 30 September 1995 before the European Commission of Human Rights. It was registered on 24 July 1996.
On 14 January 1998 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
The Government's written observations were submitted on 20 April 1998 and were transmitted to the applicant on 21 April 1998. The applicant, who up to that moment had not been legally represented, was invited to submit his written reply before 10 June 1998.
On 18 May 1998 the Commission received a letter from Kerrigans, a solicitors firm of Doncaster, South Yorkshire, stating that they had been contacted by the applicant in relation to his case and that they wished to apply for legal aid on his behalf. On 29 May 1998 they submitted the necessary forms, signed by the applicant. By letter of 23 June 1998 the Secretariat of the Commission informed the applicant that the legal aid forms had been transmitted to the Government for comments before 15 July 1998. These comments were received on 16 July 1998. The examination of the applicant's legal aid request was listed for the Commission's September session.
On 21 July 1998 the Commission's Secretariat sent a letter to the applicant's solicitors reminding them that they had not replied to the Government's written observations of 20 April 1998. The letter further drew the applicant's attention to the Convention provision concerning the striking of an application out of the list of cases (former Article 30 § 1(a)).
On 24 July 1998 the applicant's solicitors replied that they were awaiting receipt of the respondent Government's comments which were mentioned in the Secretariat's letter of 23 June 1998, whereupon they would submit their observations.
On 15 September 1998 the Commission rejected the applicant's request for legal aid.
In a letter of 16 September 1998 the Secretariat of the Commission explained to the applicant that the comments in question concerned solely the applicant's legal aid request. By the same letter the applicant was informed that legal aid had been refused. Finally, the letter reiterated that no reply to the Government's observations of 20 April 1998 had been received on behalf of the applicant.
The applicant has not replied.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
THE LAW
Having regard to the contents of the correspondence with the applicant and his failure to reply to the Government's observations of 20 April 1998, as well as to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant no longer intends to pursue the petition. 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 which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Vincent BergerMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy