CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6892/04 by Eddie GEORGE against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2004, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Eddie George, is a British national who was born in 1965 and lives in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 18 August 2003, the applicant was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing to give information about the driver of his car at the time of a suspected offence. He   was found guilty and fined GBP 400 with GBP 100 costs. His licence was endorsed with three penalty points. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that he had been subject to compulsion to give incriminating evidence in violation of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self ‑ incrimination. He further complained that the fine imposed on him was arbitrary and excessive. Finally, he complained that no evidence was given to him disclosing an offence which required him to give information about the driver of his car at the material time. THE LAW On 6 July 2007, the Court wrote to the applicant and the Government requesting their comments in light of the Grand Chamber’s judgment in O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   15809/02 and 25624/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ ... before 10 September 2007. The Government submitted their comments on 9 September 2007. No   comments were received from the applicant. A second letter was sent to the applicant by registered post on 25   September 2007 in which his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. On 22 October 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application. The Court considers that, in these 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.       For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President