FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4541/06
by Martin PILL
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
	Mr	 , President,
	Sir	Nicolas ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,	Ms	  judges,
and Mr  , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Martin Pill, is a British national who was born in April 1961 and lives in Cheltenham. He was represented before the Court by Mr Mark Panton of Morgan Rose Solicitors, a lawyer practising in London.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 October 2000 the applicant was first interviewed at his home as a witness in the investigation of four co-defendants who had been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to steal. After four hours he was arrested and then bailed.
On 7 April 2003 the applicant was charged with two counts of conspiracy to falsify documents.
On 15 May 2003, the applicant first appeared at Southwark Crown Court and was joined to the indictment. In April 2004 a trial date was fixed for 6 January 2005.
On 6 September 2004 the court amended the indictment to sever counts against the applicant for case management purposes. The Crown stated that it would not make a decision on how to proceed against the applicant until conclusion of the first trial.
On 30 January 2005 the first trial began. It ended on 29 July 2005 with the conviction of three co-defendants and the acquittal of the fourth.
On 8 August 2005 the applicant was informed in writing by the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) that the Crown would apply for the counts against him to remain on the file pending the conclusion of the appeal of the co‑defendants. On 2 September 2005, at the sentencing hearing of the convicted co-defendants, the court ordered that any decision on the trial of the applicant should be adjourned “until further order”, pending the conclusion of the appeal process. Initially the adjournment was for an indefinite period but on the request of the applicant’s lawyers the judge indicated that it would initially be for a period of 12 months.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
PROCEDURE
On 14 December 2006, the President of the Chamber decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 16 April 2007, the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. By a letter dated 23 April 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations in reply. By letter dated 12 June 2007, the Government stated that the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the appeal of the co-defendants had been handed down on 25 May 2007 and that the SFO were taking steps to have the applicant’s case listed before the Crown Court.
By letter dated 21 June 2007, the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that, as on 20 June 2007 the SFO had entered no evidence against the applicant before the Crown Court, his application had become an academic exercise and he requested its withdrawal.
THE LAW
The Court notes that, following the termination of the criminal proceedings before the national court, the applicant wishes to withdraw his application.
The Court considers that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his 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 examination of the application to be continued.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to reject the application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	T.L. 	J. 
	Registrar	President