APPLICATION/REQUÉTE N" 11224/8 4 EWING v/the UNITED KINGDOM EWING c/ROYAUME-UN1 DE('IS1ON of 18 October 1985 on the admissibility of the application llIÉCISION du 18 octobre 1985 sm- la recevaiilit€ de la requêt e Articles 25 and 27, paragraph 3 of the Convention : 1'sxamination of admissilrility of an appJication, previously rejeeted for non-observance of the six momAs' time limit, re-ooeroed following new staternent from the applicant . Articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convenüon : 5ur de nouveiles indicmions dar requérant, réouverture de lCe.camen de la recevabilité d'ane requête, precé(temment rejetée comme tardive . T]HE FACTS lfrançais : voir p. .271) The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1952 and resident in London . He was tried between 6 April 1981 and 20 May 1931 on 25 counts of offences for dishonesty, including fraud, theft and obtaining money by deception . The sums involved ranged front f4 to £18,151 . The applicant had originally been arrested on one charge on 4December 1979 and was then renianced in custody until 19 December 1979 .when he was rele:ased on bail . He, was re-arrested on 13 March 1980 and charged on 20 March 1980 with further ofh_nces . The committal for these three eharges was tnade on 13 Jutie 1980 . In Septernber 1980, the delèndant changed his lawyers and an adjournment was requested 'or full instructions to be given . 269 Further charges were brought on 4 December 1980, and all the charges were consolidated by a voluntary bill of indictment comprising the three previous indictments in February 1981 . At the trial, one count was withdrawn from the jury and the applicant was found guilty on all the others . He appealed by notice of appeal dated 16 June 1981, for which legal aid was granted on 17 July 1982 . The appeal was heard between 16 December 1982 and 21 December 1982 when the applicant's sentence was reduced from seven years to five years and the costs and compensation were also reduced . The reserved judgment was delivered on 11 March 1983 . From 11 January 1983 to 28 June 1983 the applicant brought habeas corpus proceedings to test the legality of his detention . Both proceedings were finally determined (against the applicant) by the House of Lords on 28 June 1983 . In the meantime, the applicant applied for leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings to the House of Lords . On 29 June 1983 the Court of Appeal certified that a point of law of general importance was involved in its decision to refuse the appeal against conviction on the original charges . It granted legal aid for the presentation of a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but itself refused leave to appeal and also refused to grant bail pending the hearing of the petition. The House of Lords dismissed the petition for leave to appeal on 24 October 1983, a little over two months after the applicant had been released from prison on completion of his sentence. Subsequent to the original action, the applicant was involved in proceedings, both civil and criminal, concerning, inter aCGa, the payment by the applicant's bank of costs for which he was liable as a result of the original criminal proceedings, a refusal to grant the applicant costs from central funds to pursue a private prosecution for assault and costs for an application to the High Court for judicial review of that refusal. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION The application was introduced on 9 September 1983 and registered on 26 October 1984 . It made various complaints about the proceedings referred to above, including a complaint relating to the length of the criminal proceedings both as a whole and at each jurisdictional stage .On15March1985theCommissiondeclaredthewholeoftheapplicatio n inadmissible. By letter of 12 June 1985 the applicant-drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the declaration of part of the application as inadmissible for non-observance of the six months' rule was based on facts which were shown to be untrue. 270 FINDING OF TIIE CONIlIUSSION In the light of this information, the Commission coneludes that the applicant has complied with the requiremenis of Anicle 26 of the Convention in relation to his complaint about the length of Ihe criminal proceedin€,s . For this reasons, .the Commissio n DECIDES TO RE-OPEN its examination of thé admissibility of that partof th e application n.lating to the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant .