Search
document

Document text Analytics

VIGNA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20846/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1831

Document date: April 14, 1994

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

VIGNA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20846/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1831

Document date: April 14, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20846/92

by David VIGNA

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 14 April 1994, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

A. WEITZEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

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

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

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 9 October

1992 by David VIGNA against the United Kingdom and registered on

26 October 1992 under file No. 20846/92;

Having regard to :

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

of the Commission;

- information provided by the applicant's representatives on

17 January 1994;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Sri Lankan national, born in 1961, who

at the time of lodging his application was detained in H.M.

Prison Elmsley, Kent. He was represented before the Commission

by Ms L. Christian, solicitor, Messrs Christian Fisher & Co.,

solicitors, London.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties,

may be summarised as follows:

The applicant originally complained to the Commission of the

refusal by British authorities to grant him asylum, and of their

decision to deport him back to Sri Lanka, following his

conviction and sentence in the United Kingdom for a serious drug

smuggling offence.

On 9 October 1992 he was refused leave by the High Court to

bring judicial review proceedings of these decisions.

The applicant was returned to Sri Lanka. He possessed a

valid travel document obtained from the Sri Lankan High

Commission in London prior to his deportation, some time in May

1993 (exact date unknown). On arrival in Sri Lanka he was met

by lawyers, arranged by the applicant's British solicitor. He

was detained for three hours for questioning and then released.

He has not been heard from since, other than a letter to his

solicitor saying that he had no money and did not know what to

do. As far as is known, he has remained at liberty.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant originally complained to the Commission that

his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a breach of Article

3 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 9 October 1992 and

registered on 26 October 1992.

On 16 October 1992 the Commission decided not to indicate

to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules

of Procedure, that the applicant's deportation to Sri Lanka

should be stayed.

On 2 July 1993 the Commission decided to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government. However, this decision

was annulled on 8 July 1993 when the respondent Government

informed the Commission that the applicant had by then been

returned to Sri Lanka with no significant difficulty on arrival.

This information was confirmed by the applicant's solicitor.

Consequently the Commission also decided on 8 July 1993 to

adjourn its examination of the application pending any

developments in the case.

On 17 January 1994 the applicant's solicitor informed the

Commission that she had received no instructions from the

applicant to proceed with this matter and that, therefore, the

application was not maintained.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant returned to Sri

Lanka, apparently without facing any significant difficulties on

his arrival. It also notes that he has given no instructions to

his solicitor concerning the pursuit of his application and that,

therefore, it is not maintained. In these circumstances, the

Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his

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

Convention. It also finds no general reasons concerning respect

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

retention of the case.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the

Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant