EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application no. 28110/95

Ahmad Jahromi

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

( adopted on 3 June 1999)

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................................... 3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED ............................................ 5

INTRODUCTION

1 . This Report relates to the application introduced under former [1] Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Ahmad JAHROMI against the United Kingdom on 18 July 1995.  It was registered on 3 August 1995 under file no. 28110/95.

2 . The applicant was represented by Dr. L. Malik , a solicitor practising in Manchester.

3 . The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Susan McCrory , of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

4 . On 16 April 1998 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application admissible.  It then proceeded to carry out its task under former Article 28 § 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."

5. Pursuant to the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 of the Convention, the application was transferred to the Commission sitting in Plenary.

6 . The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 3 June 1999 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with former Article 28 § 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

7 . The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM S. TRECHSEL, President

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

Sir Nicolas BRATZA

MM I. BÉKÉS

D. ŠVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENI Č

C. BÃŽRSAN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

8 . The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1967, and at the time of his application, was detained in Winson Green prison, Birmingham.

9 . In 1984, the applicant fled to Kuwait from Iran to avoid being conscripted to fight in the Iran-Iraq war. He was granted political asylum in Kuwait.

10 . In or about 1985, the applicant entered the United Kingdom as a student and has remained there ever since. During his residence there, the applicant has been an active opponent of the regime in Iran and has been involved in religious activities, being a devout muslim who regards it as part of his religious vocation to convert non-believers.

11 . In or about 1993, the applicant claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. According to the facts as found by the courts in subsequent proceedings, the applicant was given temporary admission to the United Kingdom on the basis that he had made an application for asylum which was still pending.

12 . On 9 March 1995, the applicant was detained, being informed that the Secretary of State had decided to deport him on the basis that for reasons of national security, namely, the likelihood of his involvement in terrorism, his continued presence in the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good. He was to be detained pending the decision on his outstanding application for asylum and any representations which he might wish to make.

13 . On 7 April 1995, the applicant applied for habeas corpus challenging the legality of his detention. He also applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State's failure to give adequate reasons or particulars of the allegations against him. He submitted, inter alia , that the Secretary of State had misdirected himself in considering whether his continued presence would not be conducive to the public good rather than the words of the statute which refer to the deportation having to be conducive to the public good (Section 3(5)b of the Immigration Act 1971).

14 . In an affidavit of 11 April 1995, the Secretary of State indicated that the reason for the decision to deport was that he had seen material which led him to the view that the applicant was involved in the planning of terrorist activity in the United Kingdom and to give further reasons would be damaging to national security and incompatible with the protection of intelligence sources.

15 . On 12 April 1995, Mr Justice Laws dismissed the application for judicial review and habeas corpus .

16 . On 21 June 1995, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the difference in wording between the Secretary of State's decision-letter and the provisions of the Act was a matter of semantics and there was no reason to suppose that the Secretary of State had misdirected himself. As regards the lack of reasons given, it found that unless there was evidence that the Secretary of State was not acting in good faith in asserting that the giving of further reasons would be damaging to national security and incompatible with the protection of intelligence sources, the courts must accept that position and make no further enquiry.

17 . On a date unspecified, the applicant's asylum application was refused by the Secretary of State. He decided not to exercise his right of appeal due to the national security grounds. He was removed from the United Kingdom on 3 January 1996 and was granted asylum in Kuwait.

18. In his application to the Commission, the applicant complained about his detention pending deportation. He invoked Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

19 . Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with former Article 28 § 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.

20 . In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement. After an exchange of correspondence, and at the request of the Government, the Commission made proposals for settling the case.

21 . By letter the parties indicated willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement.

22 . On 28 April and 19 May 1999 the applicant's representative and the Government respectively informed the Commission that they had reached agreement for settlement of the case at GBP 16,000.

23 . At its session on 3 June 1999, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to former Article 28 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

24 . For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

[1] The term “former” refers to the text of the Convention before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998.