J.K. v. the United Kingdom

 Application No. 18627/91

by J.K.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 October 1993, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 12 June 1991 by

J.K. against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 August 1991 under

file No. 18627/91;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the

Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 2 December 1991 to communicate the

case to the respondent Government without requesting observations

and to adjourn it pending the outcome of Applications Nos.

14553/89 and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United

Kingdom;

- the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in those

applications on 26 May 1993;

- information provided by the Government on 7 May 1993;

- information provided by the applicant's representatives on

5 October 1993;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant was a British citizen, born in 1968. He was killed

by gunmen at Castlerock, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland, on 25

March 1993. At the time of lodging his application, he was resident

in Maghera, Northern Ireland.

He was represented before the Commission by Messrs. J.C. Napier

and Co., solicitors, Belfast, now incorporated in the firm of Ms. P.

Drinan, solicitor.

The facts of the present case, as originally submitted by the

applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was arrested under Section 14 of the Prevention of

Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 at approximately 06.00 hours

on 25 February 1991. He was taken to Castlereagh Detention Centre

where he was detained until approximately 13.00 hours on 1 March 1991.

He was then released without charge. The applicant stated that he was

not brought before any judicial authority and that he was interrogated

six times a day on 25, 26, 27 and 28 February and three times on 1

March 1991.

On 23 December 1988, prior to the applicant's arrest, the United

Kingdom had informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

that they derogated from the requirements of Article 5 of the

Convention in respect of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism

(Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. This provision was replaced by

Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act

1989, pursuant to which the applicant was detained.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleged that his arrest and detention were contrary

to Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. He claimed that he

was arrested merely for the purposes of detention and interrogation.

The applicant submitted that, contrary to Article 5 para. 4 of

the Convention, he was precluded from bringing any proceedings to

determine the lawfulness of his detention. The applicant also

contended that, contrary to Article 5 para. 5 and Article 13 of the

Convention, he had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of

the other alleged breaches of Article 5.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 12 June 1991 and registered on

2 August 1991. The Commission decided on 2 December 1991 to

communicate the case to the respondent Government and to adjourn it

pending the outcome of two similar applications challenging the United

Kingdom's derogation of 23 December 1988: Applications Nos. 14553/89

and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom (Comm. Report

3.12.91), which were subsequently referred to the European Court of

Human Rights.

On 7 May 1993 the Government informed the Commission that the

applicant had been killed by gunmen at Castlerock, County Londonderry,

Northern Ireland, on 25 March 1993.

The Court gave its judgment in the Brannigan and McBride cases

on 26 May 1993 (to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The

applicant's representatives were asked whether the applicant's estate

wished to maintain the case and, if so, to submit comments on how the

applicant's case could be distinguished from those of Brannigan and

McBride.

On 5 October 1993 the applicant's representatives informed the

Commission that in view of the applicant's death "it is not proposed

the matter should proceed any further".

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant complained of a denial

of his right to liberty, without redress, on his arrest and detention

under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)

Act 1989. Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the right to liberty,

but the Court has held that detention of the duration experienced by

the applicant is compatible with Article 5 of the Convention, given the

valid derogation made by the United Kingdom on 23 December 1988. In

view of the derogation, it also held that compensation under Article

5 para. 5 of the Convention was not called for, and that detainees in

these circumstances had a remedy at their disposal in the form of an

application for habeas corpus which satisfied the requirements of

Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention in particular, and Article 13 in

general (Eur. Court H.R., Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May

1993, to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The Commission also

notes that in view of the applicant's death his estate does not propose

to proceed with the application any further.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the estate does

not intend to pursue the petition, within the meaning of Article 30

para. 1 (a) of the Convention, and that there are no reasons of a

general character concerning respect for Human Rights, within the

meaning of the last sentence of Article 30 para. 1, which require the

retention of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)