AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF


Application No. 12506/86
by P.
against the United Kingdom


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
13 July 1988, the following members being present:

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     F. ERMACORA
                     G. SPERDUTI
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     G. JÖRUNDSSON
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     H. VANDENBERGHE
                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
                Sir  Basil HALL
                MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                     C.L. ROZAKIS
                Mrs.  J. LIDDY

                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 18 July 1986
by P. against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 November 1987
under file No. 12506/86;

        Having regard to:

     -  reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of
        the Commission;

     -  the Commission's decision of 13 July 1987 to bring the
        application to the notice of the respondent Government
        and invite them to submit written observations on its
        admissibility and merits;

     -  the observations submitted by the respondent Government
        on 11 December 1987;

     -  the failure of the applicant's representatives to reply to
        these observations or to correspondence from the Secretariat;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1953
and a sign writer by profession.  He is represented before the
Commission by Messrs.  G. Howard Griffiths and Co., Solicitors,
Abertillery, Gwent.

        The applicant was in dispute with his local education
authority over his insistence on educating two of his children at home
rather than in state schools.  The local education authority was not
satisfied with the standard of education offered at home, particularly
in respect of the eldest child.


COMPLAINTS

        The applicant complained that the state of the English law on
education and the attitude, decisions and procedures followed by the
local education authority were in breach of Articles 1, 5, 6, 8 and 14
of the Convention.


PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 18 July 1986 and registered
on 3 November 1987.

        After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on
13 July 1987.  It decided to bring the application to the notice of
the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules
of Procedure, and to invite them to submit written observations on the
admissibility and merits of the application.

        The Government's observations were submitted on 11 December
1987 after an extension of the time-limit for their submission had
been granted by the President of the Commission.  In these
observations the Government informed the Commission that the applicant
and his family had moved in August 1987 and that the children were
attending a state primary school in the new area under a different
local education authority.

        The applicant did not reply to these observations and his
representatives failed to acknowledge any further correspondence from
the Commission's Secretary, including a second letter of reminder
sent by registered post on 16 May 1988.


REASONS FOR THE DECISION

        The Commission notes that the applicant and his
representatives have not responded to the Government's observations on
the admissibility and merits of the case or responded to any further
correspondence from the Commission's Secretary.  The Commission finds,
therefore, that the applicant has lost interest in his application.
It also finds that there are no reasons of a general character
affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the
further examination of this case (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure).

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.



    Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission




           (H.C. KRÜGER)                      (C.A. NØRGAARD)