Search
document

Document text Analytics

WEHELIYE, SAMATAR, ADOW AND ALI v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 30471/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3290

Document date: September 13, 1996

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

WEHELIYE, SAMATAR, ADOW AND ALI v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 30471/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3290

Document date: September 13, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 30471/96

by Ahmed Hashi WEHELIYE,

Hodan Mahmoud SAMATAR,

Amina ADOW and

Safie Ahmed ALI

against Hungary

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 September 1996, 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

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÃŽRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mr. H.C. KRÃœGER, 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 14 March 1996 by

Ahmed Hashi WEHELIYE, Hodan Mahmoud SAMATAR, Amina ADOW and Safie Ahmed

ALI against Hungary and registered on 15 March 1996 under file

No. 30471/96;

Having regard to :

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the President's decision of 15 March 1996 to apply Rule 36 of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure and to communicate the

application, moreover, the subsequent prolongation of application

of Rule 36, as decided upon on 19 April, 23 May and 4 July 1996;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

27 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant, after extensions of the time-limit, on 7 June 1996;

- the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 23 July 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, apparently born in 1980, 1979, 1982 and 1978,

respectively, are citizens of Somalia. At the time of lodging their

application, they were detained at the Budapest International Airport

Transit Accommodation. In the proceedings before the Commission they

are represented by Mr. I. Horváth, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

In early March 1996 the applicants left Damascus, Syria, with a

view to seeking asylum in Europe. On 5 March 1996, after having

allegedly applied for asylum in Milan with the Italian authorities

unsuccessfully, they arrived at Budapest International Airport. On 7

March 1996 they lodged an application for refugee status with the UNHCR

Branch Office in Budapest.

On 8 March 1996 the UNHCR refused the applicants' request. On 10

March 1996 the applicants forcibly refused to leave Hungary for

Damascus.

On 11 and 13 March 1996 Amnesty International, on behalf of the

applicants, repeatedly contacted the Ministry of the Interior

(Belügyminisztérium) requesting that the applicants be protected and

not be returned to Syria.

On 12 March 1996 the Ministry of the Interior, in response to the

request of Amnesty International, informed the applicants that the

matter was in the UNHCR's competence rather than that of the Hungarian

authorities, and that there was no basis in the Aliens Act for the

applicants to enter the territory of Hungary.

On 13 March 1996 the applicants again contacted the UNHCR, whose

representative, assisted by an interpreter, interviewed them a second

time the next day and, on 15 March 1996, requested the Hungarian

authorities to permit the applicants' entry into the country as

"persons of the concern of the UNHCR". On 18 March 1996 the UNHCR

issued certificates to the applicants and requested the Hungarian

authorities to grant the applicants provisional residence permits.

On 20 March 1996 the Hungarian authorities issued provisional

residence permits to the applicants, who were granted free movement in

Hungary and were subsequently placed in the Red Cross Refugees Home in

Budapest.

In their submissions of 23 July 1996, the Government state that,

according to the UNHCR's report of 15 July 1996, as confirmed by the

Ministry of the Interior, the applicants have disappeared from the Red

Cross Refugees Home in Budapest and have apparently left Hungary

illegally.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that

their deportation to Syria would expose them to a risk of torture, or

inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment if they were sent on to

Somalia. They further submitted under Article 13 that they did not have

the possibility to have their claim under Article 3 of the Convention

examined by the Hungarian authorities. Moreover, they complained under

Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention,

about discrimination in expulsion guarantees, on account of their non-

European origin.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 14 March 1996 and registered

on 15 March 1996.

On 15 March 1996 the President of the Commission decided to apply

Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rules 34 para. 3

and 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, for observations on its

admissibility and merits.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

27 March 1996. The observations in reply by the applicant were

submitted, after extensions of the time-limit, on 7 June 1996.

On 19 April, on 23 May and on 4 July 1996 the Commission decided

to prolong the indication under Rule 36.

On 6 August 1996 the Secretariat informed the applicants' lawyer

of the Government's submissions of 23 July 1996, and requested him to

submit observations before 2 September 1996. The applicants' lawyer has

not reacted to this letter.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly

concerning the applicants' apparent disappearance and the failure of

the applicants' representative to comment on this, the Commission

concludes that the applicants no longer intend to pursue their

application, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the

Convention.

Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the

Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect

for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the

further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para.

1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

H.C. KRÃœGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant