Search
document

Document text Analytics

TILMATINE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 33707/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3533

Document date: February 25, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

TILMATINE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 33707/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3533

Document date: February 25, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 33707/96

by Abdel Kemal TILMATINE

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

25 February 1997, the following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

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 1 October 1996 by

Abdel Kemal TILMATINE against the United Kingdom and registered on

7 November 1996 under file No. 33707/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Algerian citizen, born in 1965 and resident

in London. He is represented before the Commission by Jawaid Luqmani,

a solicitor practising in London. The facts of the case as submitted

by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom in 1993 and applied

for asylum. In September 1993 his claim for asylum was dismissed and

in May 1994 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal also dismissed his appeal.

In November 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. The

Immigration Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal accepted that the

applicant was a member of the FIS Islamic Fundamentalist group in

Algeria and that he had been involved in a bombing of an airport in

which ten persons were killed. The Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal

to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords, in a detailed judgment, dismissed his appeal

on 22 May 1996. The House of Lords accepted that the applicant had been

tried in his absence for, inter alia, the airport bombing, that he had

been convicted and sentenced to death and that he risked his life and

freedom should he return to Algeria. However, they concluded that the

Immigration Appeal Tribunal had been right in its conclusion that there

were serious reasons for considering that the applicant had committed

a "serious non-political crime" in Algeria, that the applicant's case

fell within Article 1F(b) of the Geneva Convention on the Status of

Refugees 1951 and that he thereby lost any protection which would have

been available under the Geneva Convention 1951.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that

he faces the execution of a death sentence if expelled to Algeria which

sentence was imposed after a trial in his absence. He also complains

under Article 3 of the Convention that he runs a real risk on expulsion

of treatment contrary to that Article. He also invokes Articles 5, 6

and 13 of the Convention.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that under Article 30 para. 1(a) and (c)

of the Convention it may decide to strike a petition out of its list

of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the

applicant does not intend to pursue his case or that it is, for any

other reason, established by the Commission that it is no longer

justified to continue the examination of it. The Commission shall,

however, continue its examination of the petition if respect for human

rights, as defined in the Convention, so requires.

The Commission notes, from the applicant's representative's

letter dated 24 December 1996, that the applicant wishes to withdraw

his complaint.

It is also noted from that letter that the Home Office have

decided not to proceed with the applicant's removal and that the

applicant has been granted one year's leave to remain on an exceptional

basis. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it is no longer

justified to continue the examination of the case and that respect for

human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to

continue that examination.

It follows that the application may be struck off the list of

cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(a) and (c) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant