Ayliffe and Others v. the United Kingdom

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 33294/06 by Benjamin AYLIFFE and Others against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President, Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

There are thirteen applicants in the present case: Mr Benjamin Ayliffe and twelve others. Their names and nationalities are listed in the Appendix. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Schwartz, a lawyer practising in London with Bindman & Partners. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Moynihan of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants were all either employees of or volunteers for Greenpeace. They were charged with a number of offences relating to the boarding of a cargo ship. They were acquitted on 16 September 2005. The trial judge refused to award the applicants their costs in the criminal proceedings.

The application was formally communicated to the Government for their observations on 7 May 2008. The Government’s observations were received on 24 September 2008.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained that the refusal to award them their costs was incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. They further complained that since their action in boarding the ship was also a protest, it was protected by Article 10.

THE LAW

On 10 December 2008 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw the application.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.

Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants