AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY


Application No. 13365/87
by Oladeinde AJINAJA
against the United Kingdom


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

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     G. SPERDUTI
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     G. JÖRUNDSSON
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     J. CAMPINOS
                     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 7 September
1987 by Oladeinde AJINAJA against the United Kingdom and registered
on 26 October 1987 under file No. 13365/87;

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

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria, born in 1952 and
currently detained in H.M. Prison The Verne, Portland, where he is
serving a six year prison sentence for a drug smuggling offence.

        This is his second application to the Commission.  In his
first application (No. 12749/87, Dec. 15.5.87) the applicant
complained, inter alia, of unlawful arrest, conviction and detention,
contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (a) and (c), and Articles 3 and 4 of
the Convention.  The applicant was convicted by a competent court on 1
February 1985, his application for leave to appeal being dismissed by
the Full Court of Appeal on 18 October 1985.  The Commission declared
the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

        In the present case the applicant claims to have relevant new
information in respect of his original claims, of which he seeks a
second examination by the Commission.  He submits that the date of
introduction of the present application should be that of the first,
namely 24 November 1986, or even earlier when he first made inquiries
about the Commission's procedure on 16 November 1985.  The purportedly
relevant new information is as follows:-

        The applicant states that he was given free legal assistance
for the trial and preparation of the grounds of appeal.  Defence
counsel lodged the application for leave to appeal and also applied
for legal aid and leave to call witneses.  The single judge refused
all three applications on 14 June 1985.  The applicant made further
applications to the Full Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, legal
aid, leave to call witnesses and leave to be present at an eventual
hearing.  These applications were refused on 18 October 1985, in the
absence of both defence counsel and the applicant.


COMPLAINTS

        The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal denied him
his minimum rights of defence, ensured by Article 6 para. 3 (c) and (d)
of the Convention.


THE LAW

        The applicant has complained that the leave to appeal
proceedings before the Court of Appeal breached his rights under
Article 6 para. 3 (c) and (d) (Art. 6-3-c-d) of the Convention which
provide as follows:

        "3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has
         the following minimum rights:

         ...

         c.  to defend himself in person or through legal
         assistance of his own choosing or, if he has
         insufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be
         given it free when the interests of justice so require;
         d.  to examine or have examined witnesses on his behalf
         under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

        However, the Commission is not competent to deal with the
applicant's complaints because he has failed to observe the six
months' rule laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the
final decision in the case being that of the Court of Appeal on 18
October 1985, but the present complaints not being put before the
Commission until 7 September 1987.

        The applicant has contended that these complaints constitute
relevant new information for the purposes of Article 27 para. 1 (b)
(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, which warrant the re-opening of his
previous application (No. 12749/87) with an introduction date of 16
November 1985.  The Commission finds, however, that the applicant's
present complaints are entirely different from his original complaints
of unlawful arrest, conviction and sentence, contrary to Article 5
(Art. 5) of the Convention, and do not constitute new information
relevant to the Commission's decision in the first application.
Moreover, the Commission cannot accept, as a basis for reconsidering a
case information, further submissions or re-formulated complaints
which were known to the applicant and could clearly have been
presented by him with the original application.  The Commission
concludes, therefore, that there are no grounds for re-opening the
examination of Application No. 12749/87, or for considering the
present application as constituting relevant, new information
necessitating a further examination of the applicant's original
complaints of a breach of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention as a
new case, or for considering the date of introduction of the present
application to be other than that of the applicant's letter dated 7
September 1987 when he first put to the Commission his complaints
under Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) of the Convention.

        In these circumstances, the Commission rejects the present
application for non-observance of the six months' rule, pursuant to
Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.


Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission



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