CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 novembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF5D7A07A { width:224.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 37177/02 by James John SMITH against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   November   2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant’s failure to make further response, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                     THE FACTS The applicant is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Tunbridge Wells, Kent. He was represented before the Court by Birnberg Pierce and Partners, solicitors practising in London. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Between October 1995 and October 1996 the applicant was involved in large scale dealing in class A and B drugs, namely ecstasy and cannabis. As part of an extensive surveillance operation mounted by police, in spring 1996 a covert listening device was installed in the home of a co-defendant called Fleckney and conversations between Fleckney, the applicant and others were recorded and formed the basis of the case against them. In October 1996, the applicant was arrested. In early 1998 he was tried with Fleckney and five others. Prior to the trial, the judge heard submissions that the evidence from the covert listening device should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The judge ruled that the evidence could be admitted. On 2 March 1998, the applicant was convicted on three counts and sentenced to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment. On 19 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction but reduced his sentence to eight years. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about the installation and use of the listening device. PROCEDURE On 6 February 2003, the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints. On 10 April 2003, the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. By letter dated 16 April 2003, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ solicitor, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by   2 June 2003. By letter dated 12 August 2003, sent by registered post, the Registry informed the solicitor that no observations, or request for further extension in the time-limit, had been received. A registered letter of the same date was sent to the applicant himself. Both letters warned that in the absence of any response the case might be struck out of the list of cases. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant’s solicitor and the applicant have failed to respond to the Government’s submissions or to the warnings that the case could be struck out. The Court considers that in the circumstances the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Michael O’Boyle   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President