Search
document

Document text Analytics

ASHRAF v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14985/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1793

Document date: April 14, 1994

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

ASHRAF v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14985/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1793

Document date: April 14, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 14985/89

by Jamaldeen ASHRAF

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 2 May 1989

by Jamaldeen ASHRAF against the United Kingdom and registered on

10 May 1989 under file No. 14985/89;

Having regard to :

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

of the Commission;

- information submitted by the respondent Government on 20

December 1989, 28 May 1992 and 21 September 1993 and comments

by the applicant in reply dated 3 March 1994;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Sri Lankan citizen, born in 1962, who at

the time of lodging his application was temporarily resident in

Buckinghamshire, England. He is represented before the

Commission by Messrs. Winstanley-Burgess, solicitors, London.

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

may be summarised as follows:

The applicant belongs to the small muslim minority (8 % of

the population of Sri Lanka). His family live in southern Sri

Lanka in a Tamil neighbourhood and are Tamil sympathisers.

Between 1980 and 1982, whilst he was studying, he took part in

Tamil separatist movement activities involving military training.

He left Sri Lanka in 1982 and worked in Iraq until 1985

contributing part of his salary to the Tamil cause. He returned

to Sri Lanka in September 1985. Rumour was rife about torture

by the Sri Lankan police. Within a few weeks of his return, the

local police were making inquiries about him and arranged for him

to attend the local police station for questioning. He fled to

avoid that, arriving in London on 10 November 1985 with a transit

visa, purportedly en route for Iraq to work but fully intending

to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. The British immigration

authorities considered that the temporary visa had been obtained

by false representations and refused entry. The applicant then

applied for asylum which was also refused (reasons unspecified).

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to an adjudicator and the

Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and his application for judicial

review of the latter decision was dismissed by the High Court and

Court of Appeal (final decision 16 December 1988).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant originally complained that if he were returned

to Sri Lanka, he had good reason to believe that he would face

treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He also

complained of an absence of effective domestic remedies for this

allegation, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 2 May 1989 and registered

on 10 May 1989.

On lodging the application, the applicant requested that the

Commission, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure,

indicate to the respondent Government that it would be in the

interests of the parties and the proper conduct of proceedings

for the applicant's removal to Sri Lanka to be stayed pending the

outcome of the Commission's examination of the case. On 11 May

1989 the Commission decided not to make such an indication.

On 13 July 1989 the Commission considered the admissibility

of the application and decided, pursuant to the then Rule 42

para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure (now Rule 48 para. 2 (a)),

to request documentation from the applicant concerning the

reasons for the Home Secretary's refusal of the applicant's

asylum request. The applicant, after having contacted the

competent authorities, was unable to provide the information.

On 10 November 1989 the Rapporteur requested that

information from the Government pursuant to the then Rule 40

para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure (now Rule 47 para. 2 (a)).

On 20 December 1989 the Government informed the Commission

that the applicant's asylum request was being reconsidered.

After two reminders from the Commission's Secretariat, the

Government informed the Commission on 5 July 1990 that they had

awaited certain observations from the applicant's solicitors and

would be reaching a final decision soon. After several further

reminders from the Commission's Secretariat, the Government

informed the Commission on 28 May 1992 that the Home Secretary

had maintained his refusal of asylum, but had exceptionally

granted the applicant one year's leave to remain in the United

Kingdom.

Further delays then followed while that decision was put

into effect, with several requests in the meantime from the

applicant's solicitors that the decision be implemented. An

explanation concerning passport difficulties was provided by the

Government on 9 July 1993.

A letter dated 21 September 1993 was sent by the Government

informing the Commission that the Home Office had been in direct

contact with the applicant's solicitors and had informed them

that the applicant had been granted one year's leave to remain,

which leave would be reviewed at the end of that period. However

this letter did not arrive at the Commission and after a further

reminder from the Commission's Secretariat about the case a copy

of it was sent on 21 January 1994.

The Secretary to the Commission sent a copy of the letter

to the applicant's representatives on 2 February 1994 and asked

whether the applicant maintained his case in view of the grant

of leave.

The applicant's solicitors replied on 3 March 1994 that the

applicant did not wish to pursue his complaint now that there is

no longer a threat of him being removed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant has been granted one

year's leave to remain in the United Kingdom and that, therefore,

he no longer wishes to pursue his petition before the Commission,

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

The Commission finds that there are no general reasons concerning

respect for Human Rights which require the continued examination

of the case pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 in fine.

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