CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 16 septembre 1997

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                            FIRST CHAMBER                      Application No. 27435/95                          James Lockie Thaw                               against                           the United Kingdom                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                   (adopted on 16 September 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   PART I   : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5                            INTRODUCTION   1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. James Lockie Thaw against the United Kingdom on 21 March 1994.   It was registered on 31 May 1995 under file No. 27435/95.   2.    The applicant was represented by the AIRE Centre, London.   3.    The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr. M.R. Eaton, of Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.   4.    On 26 June 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application partly inadmissible.   On 21 May 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the remainder of the application, which concerns the length of proceedings complaint, admissible1.   It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to      it:        a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake      together with the representatives of the parties an examination      of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the      effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all      necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the      Commission;        b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of      the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly      settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights      as defined in this Convention."   5.    The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 16 September 1997 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   6.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             Mrs. J. LIDDY, President           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                B. MARXER                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL           Mrs. M. HION           Mr.   R. NICOLINI                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   7.    The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1923 and resident in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear.   8.    In March 1988, the applicant agreed to sell his house at 7 Kirkstone Gardens ("the property") in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy. However, on the date of completion, 15 July 1988, the applicant's solicitor advised him not to complete, since a bankruptcy petition had been presented on 23 February 1988 and all his property was therefore subject to bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant had already given the intended purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. F, the keys and they had moved into the property.   9.    On 5 November 1988, the Alliance and Leicester Building Society, which had a mortgage over the property, ordered the applicant to give possession of the property within 28 days but did not then pursue proceedings.   Mr. and Mrs. F therefore continued to occupy the property without having purchased it and without paying rent.   10.   On 1 August 1989, Mr. and Mrs. F took action to obtain specific performance of the contract for sale of the property. By letter dated 10 November 1989 the applicant's solicitors applied for legal aid to defend these proceedings. The applicant wanted the property to be sold on the open market by either the Building Society or the trustee in bankruptcy since he believed that a better price would now be achieved than the one he had agreed with Mr. and Mrs. F in March 1988. On 8 December 1989 legal aid was refused on the basis that inter alia the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being party to the proceedings.   11.   On 18 May 1990 the Newcastle County Court ordered the property vested in the trustee in bankruptcy to be transferred to Mr. and Mrs. F upon payment of £34,000 plus accrued interest.   On 20 February 1991, the Registrar of the High Court of Justice in Bankruptcy refused the applicant leave to appeal from that decision.   On 30 April 1991 the applicant lodged an appeal from the Registrar's order by way of an application to a single High Court judge of the Chancery Division. On 5 July 1991, the applicant appeared before the Vice Chancellor who overturned the order of 20 February 1991 and granted the applicant leave to appeal out of time against the order of 18 May 1990.   On 12 November 1992 a single High Court judge upheld the order of Newcastle County Court of 18 May 1990 and dismissed the applicant's appeal.   The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, the appeal being set down on 2 March 1993. In December 1993 the Civil Appeals Office, having been in contact with the trustee in bankruptcy, informed the applicant that the trustee in bankruptcy did not consent to the appeal proceedings.   The applicant sent a letter to the Civil Appeals Office, received on 6 January 1994, that made representations about his rights. On 13 January 1994 the applicant was informed that the Civil Appeals Office would liaise further with the trustee.   On 8 March 1994 the trustee further confirmed that consent to the appeal proceedings would not be forthcoming and on 9 March 1994 the trustee joined the other parties' (Mr. and Mrs. F) request that the applicant's application for leave to appeal be dismissed.    The Registrar of the Civil Appeals Office declined to authorise disposal of the matter by consent until further consideration could be given to whether the trustee was fully competent to join in a request for dismissal of the application.   On 9 October 1996 a single Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed, by consent, the applicant's application for leave to appeal.   12.   The applicant complained of the length of proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   13.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   14.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   15.   On 11 September 1997 the parties submitted declarations as to a settlement of the case whereby the Government agreed to pay to the applicant's representatives a sum of £1,100.00, such sum to include an element for costs.   16.   At its session on 16 September 1997, the Commission (First Chamber) noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   17.   For these reasons, the Commission (First Chamber) adopted the present Report.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                   J. LIDDY           Secretary                      President      to the First Chamber           of the First Chamber