CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 septembre 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                                      PARTIAL                           AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 20448/92                       by A.T.                       against the United Kingdom           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 7 September 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 10 October 1991 by A.T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 6 August 1993 under file No. 20448/92;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:               THE FACTS         The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1949.         On 3 June 1988 the applicant pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his mother on the grounds of diminished responsibility.   The plea was accepted.   On 1 July 1988 he was sentenced at the Central Criminal Court, London, to an indeterminate period of life imprisonment.   The Common Serjeant, sentencing, made the following remarks.         "... I am confident [that a sentence of an indeterminate period of life imprisonment] does not mean life, it will mean somewhat less. How long you stay in prison depends upon your improvement and you behave there, but in order that your medical condition shall be fully appreciated by staff at hospital ... I shall invite the prison authorities to consider whether, in the light of [... medical opinions ...] it would be possible to transfer you to a hospital where you could receive proper treatment for your illness."         In 1991 the applicant applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.   The single judge refused and, on 29 July 1991, the full Court of Appeal also refused, finding the approach of the trial judge to be entirely correct.   By letter of 8 June 1992 the applicant was informed that Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 applied to his case, and that the "tariff" in his case, that is his period of confinement necessary for the protection of the public, was to expire on 8 December 1992.   Section 34 provides that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release prisoners to whom the Section applies in cases where, broadly, the "tariff" has expired and the Board is satisfied that continued confinement of the prisoner is no longer necessary.   The applicant was also told that he would be informed of the date on which his case would be referred to the Parole Board under the "new arrangements".   The applicant states that he has been told by the prison Governor that he may expect to wait one to two years for a hearing under the new system.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by virtue of ill-treatment when he was being taken into custody on 10 July 1987.   He also alleges that, because he was in prison, he was unable properly to defend himself in civil proceedings brought against him by a former solicitor.   In these civil proceedings a default judgment was obtained against him on 10 November 1988.   The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 in this respect.         The applicant also alleges that, after conviction, he was wrongly diagnosed schizophrenic and that a life-sentence should therefore not have been imposed.   He alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention in that there exists no court which will consider the merits of his appeal against what he calls the baseless medical evidence presented at trial.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant alleges violations of Article 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention in respect the alleged ill-treatment when he was taken into custody, and impairment of his ability to defend civil proceedings against him.   However, the Commission is not required to decide whether these allegations disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions, as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken." In the case of these two complaints, assuming compliance with the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission must take as the relevant date for the purpose of the six months rule 10 July 1987 in connection with the allegation of ill-treatment, and 10 November 1988 in connection with the civil proceedings brought against the applicant. The present application, however, was submitted to the Commission on 10 October 1991, that is, more than 6 months after the date of these decisions.   Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.         It follows that this part of the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.   The Commission considers it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention without the observations of both parties.         This part of the application must therefore be adjourned.         For these reasons, the Commission by a majority         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaints under Articles       3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention, and         DECIDES TO ADJOURN the remainder of the application.     Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber           (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                      (A. WEITZEL)