FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application nos. 49764/99 and others
by Simon WILLIS and Others
against the United Kingdom
17 applications against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 March 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications set out on the list attached to the end of this decision and lodged on various dates from 15 July 1999 onwards,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are United Kingdom nationals. They were represented before the Court by Dicksons HMB, a firm of solicitors practising in Stoke-on-Trent, England.
The applications arise out of the applicants’ failure to pay either court-imposed fines or local taxes. As a result, the applicants were brought before a Magistrates’ Court, which committed them to a term of imprisonment. The High Court subsequently quashed, on various grounds, the orders committing them to prison. The majority of the applicants stated that they were neither represented nor offered legal representation at the hearings at which they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention that their detention was unlawful and that they could not obtain compensation therefor. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they did not have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the Magistrates’ Court. The majority of the applicants complained further under Article 6 § 3(c) of the Convention about their lack of legal representation at those hearings.
RELEVANT PROCEDURE
The applicants all introduced their cases through a firm of solicitors. In applications in respect of which the applicants’ solicitors had not enclosed a completed form of authority, authorising that firm to represent the applicants before the Court, at the time that the application was introduced, they were requested by the Court to return a completed form of authority.
On 28 March 2001 the Court wrote to the applicants’ solicitors (Dicksons HMB solicitors), in relation to a group of 97 other applicants represented by that firm in applications raising similar issues, pointing out that none of the applicants in those cases had provided an appropriately completed form of authority. In some cases this was because the law firm named on the form which had been provided (either “Clyde Chappell & Botham” or “HMB Law”) no longer existed as a result of a merger. In others, no form of authority at all had been received. That letter continued by informing the applicants’ solicitors that the Court would write to them separately in respect of the forms of authority in relation to the applications which are the subject-matter of this decision. The letter concluded:
“Please ensure the correct completion of these forms of authority in any future cases and, more generally, I would remind you of your obligation to keep the Court informed of any change in the relevant circumstances of the cases, including any change in the applicants’ legal representation.”
On 10 May 2001 the Court wrote to the applicants’ solicitors and enclosed detailed lists of applicants in respect of whom a form of authority was required. Those lists included all of the present applicants.
On 30 May 2001, the Court again referred the applicants’ solicitors to the Court’s letter of 10 May 2001 and to the lists enclosed with that letter.
On 10 August 2001 the applicants’ solicitors were again referred to the Court’s letter of 10 May 2001 and a further reminder was given about the outstanding forms of authority which were mentioned in the lists attached to that letter.
On 14 September 2001 reference was made to the Court’s letter of 10 August 2001 and the applicants’ solicitors were again requested to return the outstanding forms of authority as soon as possible.
On 7 May 2002 the Court decided to give notice of the applications to the Government of the United Kingdom and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the cases. Thereafter, written observations were received from the Government, as well as from the applicants in reply.
On 30 May 2002 the applicants’ solicitors wrote to the Court enclosing several forms of authority not relating to the present applicants. They stated that they noted that those forms had been on their file for some time and believed that they should have been sent to the Court. They further asked the Court to advise them whether or not there were any other authorities still outstanding.
On 23 July 2002 the Court informed the applicants’ solicitors that it was in the process of checking all the applications submitted by them and that it would contact them again in due course with a list of applications where an authority, or an up to date authority, was still outstanding.
On 28 November 2002 the Court sent a further letter to the applicants’ solicitors by facsimile and registered post. It pointed out that none of the present applicants had provided an appropriately completed form of authority. It stated, inter alia, that, in some of the present applications, no form of authority had ever been provided; in respect of others, while a form had, at some stage, been provided, it was out of date in that it did not name Dicksons HMB as the law firm representing them; and, in one of the present applications, the form of authority was incomplete in that it was, inter alia, undated.
The Court’s letter of 28 November 2002 enclosed a further list of applicants from whom an appropriately completed form of authority was required. The history of the request for forms of authority was set out. Further copy forms of authority were enclosed and it was stated that one should be completed correctly and in full by, inter alia, each of the present applicants. In the light of the history of the request for the forms of authority, the applicants’ solicitors were referred to Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. The following warning was then given:
“Should appropriately completed forms of authority not be received by 19 December 2002 at the latest, any such applications will be put before the Court for consideration as to whether they should be struck out of its list of cases.”
No response to the Court’s letter of 28 November 2002 was received prior to 19 December 2002.
On 10 January 2003, the Court, by facsimile and registered post, wrote to the applicants’ solicitors and referred to its previous letter of 28 November 2002 and the warning contained within that letter. It made clear that neither had any forms of authority been received in respect of the present applicants since the Court’s letter of 28 November 2002, nor had any explanation been offered for their absence. The letter continued:
“In the above circumstances, the Court will now proceed to consider, in the near future, whether to strike out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Rules 36 and 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court, those applications in respect of which no form of authority has been received here as at the date of its consideration. Should you receive any forms of authority in relation to these applications, you should therefore send them to the Court by facsimile, as well as by ordinary post.”
From communications with the applicants’ solicitors thereafter it appeared that a letter which they had sent to the Court by ordinary post on 17 December 2002 had gone astray. The original copy of that letter was eventually received by the Court, as an apparent result of postal delays, on 20 January 2003. No forms of authority from the present 17 applicants were enclosed. The applicants’ solicitors stated in that letter that, in respect of the present applicants:
“...we have been unsuccessful in locating their address details and do not foresee obtaining their authorities in the time limit set. Therefore being unable to take further instructions from these applicants we will be unable to act on their behalf.”
No forms of authority in respect of the present applicants have been received by the Court thereafter.
THE LAW
Rule 36 of the Rules of Court reads, in relevant part:
“1. Persons, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals may initially present applications under Article 34 of the Convention themselves or through a representative appointed under paragraph 4 of this Rule.
...
4. (a) The representative of the applicant shall be an advocate authorised to practise in any of the Contracting Parties and resident in the territory of one of them, or any other person approved by the President of the Chamber.”
Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court reads:
“Where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule 36, a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives.”
Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court reads:
“Applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application.”
Article 37 of the Convention reads:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved; or
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.
2. The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.”
None of the applicants have been in contact with the Court directly. Each introduced their application through a firm of solicitors. Where applicants choose to be represented by a solicitor under Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, rather than to introduce their application themselves, it is a requirement, under Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court, that a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representatives.
The Court notes that it is now almost two years ago that the applicants’ solicitors were reminded about the need to supply appropriately completed forms of authority in respect of cases which they brought before the Court. It is also now over 21 months since the Court enclosed a detailed list containing the name and application number of each of the current applicants in respect of whom an appropriately completed form of authority was required.
The Court notes further that it has written to the applicants’ solicitors about this matter on no fewer than seven occasions from 28 March 2001 onwards. Notwithstanding the failures on their behalf to provide the requisite forms, the Court also gave the applicants’ solicitors a final deadline of 19 December 2002 by which to provide the forms of authority or risk the striking out of the applications in relation to which no such appropriately completed form had been provided.
Even thereafter, the Court’s letter of 10 January 2003 still enabled the applicants’ solicitors to provide appropriately completed forms of authority on behalf of the applicants for whom they purported to act right up until the date on which the applications were actually considered by the Court. Notwithstanding all of the above factors, no such forms have been provided by any of the applicants whose applications are under consideration in this decision.
The Court further notes that none of the present applicants has provided a new form of authority since the Court’s letter to the applicants’ solicitors’ of 28 March 2001. Indeed, the Court observes that 11 out of the present 17 applicants have never provided any form of authority.
The Court has also taken into account that Dicksons HMB solicitors now state that they have been unable to locate the address details of these 17 applicants, cannot take further instructions from them and are unable to act on their behalf.
In the above circumstances, the Court concludes that the present applicants do not intend to pursue their application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. They have failed to respond to the simple and repeated requests to return an appropriately completed form of authority over a lengthy period of time. They have never been in contact with the Court themselves; nor have they responded to the Court’s requests through the solicitors who purported to act on their behalf; nor do they even appear any longer to be in contact with those solicitors.
In addition, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention. These applicants have repeatedly failed to forward an appropriately completed form of authority, notwithstanding the requirement for one to be provided under Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court and notwithstanding the numerous requests that have been made to Dicksons HMB solicitors over a lengthy period of time. Furthermore, in contravention of Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, it appears from Dicksons HMB solicitors’ letter of 17 December 2002 that the applicants have failed to keep the Court informed of any change that there has been in their address, or of any other matter relevant to their application, in particular any change that there may have been in their legal representation. In the circumstances of this case, the Court regards the aforementioned failures to constitute a serious disregard of the requirements set out in the Rules of Court.
Furthermore, the Court does not consider that respect for human rights requires it to continue the examination of any of the present applications. It observes that the general principles relating to the issues raised in these applications have already been considered by the Convention organs, in particular in two Court judgments (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III and Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25777/94 and others, 12 October 1999, unreported). Moreover, many cases raising similar issues to those involved in the present applications remain pending before the Court (see, generally, Fitzmartin and others v. the United Kingdom (striking out), nos. 34953/97 and others, 21 January 2003, unreported).
Accordingly, the Court considers that the present applications should be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention and under Article 37 § 1(c) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosMatti Pellonpää
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Application number
Application name
49764/99
Simon WILLIS
55017/00
Jacqueline WILLIAMS
55065/00
Carol CRAWFORD
58036/00
Janet TULLY
58384/00
Lisa FOLWELL
58505/00
Timothy SLATER
58507/00
Nelson DOS-SANTOS
58755/00
Amanda DANIELS
58888/00
Mehmet ARKARSU
58892/00
Jackie FINN
58920/00
Lorraine TAYLOR
58924/00
Victoria RUSSELL
59103/00
Paul RICHARDS
59104/00
Cheryl HAINES
59105/00
Eileen REYNOLDS
59106/00
Brendan MALLAGHAN
3764/02
Anthony COSGROVE
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy