Application No. 10822/84
                  by P.G.
                  against the United Kingdom

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 7 May 1987  the following members being present:

              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                  G. SPERDUTI
                  J. A. FROWEIN
                  F. ERMACORA
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  G. TENEKIDES
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  B. KIERNAN
                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J. C. SOYER
                  H. G. SCHERMERS
                  G. BATLINER
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             Mr.  F. MARTINEZ

              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 6 April 1983
by P.G. against the United Kingdom and registered on
20 February 1984 under file N° 10822/84;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


        The applicant, Ms. P.G., is a citizen of the
United Kingdom, born in 1953.  She is a medical secretary by
profession and at present resides in W., England.  She is
represented, in proceedings before the Commission, by
Miss Tina Dempster of the National Council for Civil Liberties.

        The applicant was, at the time of the introduction of the
application, the common-law wife of Mr. J.W. who, following his
conviction on 20 May 1983 at the Birmingham Crown Court for conspiracy
to rob, is at present serving a ten-year sentence of imprisonment.  He
is due to be released in September 1988.

        On 15 July 1983 the applicant wrote to the Home Office
requesting permission to be artificially inseminated with her
common-law husband as a donor.  The application was supported by the
applicant's doctor who indicated that facilities for artificial
insemination were available at a hospital close to the prison.

        This request was refused by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department in a letter dated 17 August 1983.  In his letter he
stated as follows:

"Facilities for artificial insemination are not normally
made available to prisoners, although any application is
very carefully considered in the light of the circumstances
of the case to see if there are any wholly exceptional
features which might justify such an arrangement.  Miss G.
and Mr. W.'s case is not one, however, where
it would be appropriate to make an exception."

        In a subsequent letter dated 4 November 1983 confirming this
refusal, the Secretary of State indicated that in fact no prisoner had
yet been allowed facilities for artificial insemination.

        Since the submission of her application to the Commission, the
applicant was found to have developed a pre-cancerous abnormality of
the cervix and received laser treatment at the Women's Hospital in
Birmingham.  On 15 May 1985 she submitted a fresh request to the
Secretary of State pointing out that in the light of medical evidence
it might be too late for her to conceive, either naturally or
artificially, by the time Mr. W. was released from prison in
September 1988.  She claims that no reply was received to this

        In the meantime the Governor of Birmingham Prison granted
permission for the applicant to marry Mr. W. in the prison chapel
and the marriage took place on 15 July 1985.

        A decision was subsequently taken by the Secretary of State of
the Home Department in June 1986 to grant the applicant's request for
facilities to enable her to be artifically inseminated with her
husband as the donor.


        The applicant submits that the earlier refusal of the
Secretary of State to grant her permission to be artificially
inseminated with her husband as donor constituted a breach of her
right to respect for private and family life under Art. 8 of the
Convention.  She concedes that the right to private and family life
may be subject to interference in the interests of public safety.
However, she points out that the arrangements needed for her then
common-law husband to act as a donor would not pose any threat to
prison security, and would not require the supervision needed for a
conjugal visit (No. 8166/78, D.R. 13 p. 241).

        She also alleges a breach of her right to found a family as
guaranteed by Art. 12.


        The application was introduced on the 6 April 1983 and
registered on 20 February 1984.  It was first examined by the
Commission on 3 March 1986 when it was decided to give notice of the
application to the respondent Government and to ask them to submit
their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application
in so far as it raised issues under Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the
Convention.  These observations were to be submitted by 23 May 1986.

        In a letter dated 23 June 1986 the Agent of the Government
informed the Commission that the Secretary of State had decided to
grant the applicant's request for facilities to enable her to be
artificially inseminated with her husband, Mr. J.W., as the
donor.  The applicant was informed of this decision and of the
arrangements to give effect to it.

        The applicant's legal representative was requested, in letters
dated 2 July 1986, 20 September 1986, 10 November 1986 and 15 January
1987 whether, in the light of this development, the applicant wished
to maintain her application before the Commission.  No reply has been
received to these letters.


        The Commission notes that the applicant complained, under
Articles 8 (Art. 8) and 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention, of the refusal
by the Secretary of State to allow her to be artificially inseminated
by her husband as the donor.  It further notes that the Secretary of
State granted the applicant's request in June 1986 and that no reply
has been sent to letters from the Secretariat requesting her to
indicate whether she intended to maintain her application before the
Commission.  The Commission finds that the applicant no longer wishes
to pursue her application and that there are no reasons relating to
the general interest to continue an examination of the application.

     For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission

    (H. C. KRUGER)                         (C. A. NØRGAARD)