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. 11046/03 by Mark WATTS 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 25 March 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mark Watts, is a British national who was born in 1966 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. The applicant received a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring him to identify the driver of a vehicle registered in his name that had been photographed exceeding the speed limit. He declined to provide the information and was subsequently summoned to the Magistrates’ Court for failing to comply with section 172(3) of the same Act. He was convicted of the offence and was ordered to pay GBP 50 costs and his licence was endorsed with three penalty points. The applicant further alleged that the police never disclosed evidence to him, that at trial the prosecution passed papers to the magistrate and that the Magistrates’ Court failed to inform him about how to appeal against the conviction. 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 of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court. 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. That letter was returned to sender on 6 November 2007. 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