Search
document

Document text Analytics

T. ; S. ; Th. ; M. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18099/91 • ECHR ID: 001-953

Document date: July 10, 1991

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

T. ; S. ; Th. ; M. v. AUSTRIA

Doc ref: 18099/91 • ECHR ID: 001-953

Document date: July 10, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 18099/91

by T., S., Th. & M.

against Austria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 10 July 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

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 11 April 1991

by T., S., Th. and M. against Austria and registered on 19 April 1991

under file No. 18099/91;

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 facts as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as

follows.

The applicants are four Sri-Lankan citizens of Tamil origin,

who were born in 1969, 1972, 1965 and 1949 respectively. They arrived

at Vienna Airport in March 1991 where they had to remain in the transit

room for several weeks as they were not allowed to leave it. They are

represented before the Commission by Mr. Wolfgang Rainer, a lawyer

practising in Vienna.

The applicants left their country in March 1991 allegedly as

they feared that they would be killed by the Sri-Lankan army.

Eventually they arrived in Athens where they had to remain in the

transit room of Athens Airport. They were prevented from applying for

asylum.

After their arrival in Vienna the applicants filed requests

for asylum with the Security Directorate (Sicherheitsdirektion) of

Lower Austria on 25 March 1991. The proceedings are still pending.

According to Section 5 para. 1 of the Austrian Asylum Act

(Asylgesetz) a person requesting asylum has the right to stay in the

country until the final decision in the asylum proceedings has been

given, provided the request is filed within two weeks after arrival in

Austria.

However, on 5 April 1991 the Schwechat Federal Police

Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion) served identical decisions on

each applicant, according to which they had no right to stay in

Austria as, in the view of the authority, they had already fled to

another country where they could have asked for asylum.

The decisions also stated that any further measures concerning

the applications would be taken in pursuance of the Aliens Act

(Fremdenpolizeigesetz). According to Section 5 para. 1 of that Act

an alien may be detained pending deportation, in preparation of a

formal prohibition to reside and of an expulsion, in order to secure

the deportation of the person concerned. The applicants appealed

against the decisions.

On 8 or 9 April 1991 the applicants were deported to Greece.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that

they would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if they were

to be returned to Sri Lanka.

They fear that, after their deportation to Greece, they would

be deported to Sri Lanka. They deny that they could have requested

asylum in Athens where they landed before arriving in Vienna.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 11 April 1991 and registered

on 19 April 1991.

By letter of 11 June 1991 the applicants' lawyer informed the

Commission that it is unknown in what country the applicants sojourn

or whether they were allowed to stay in Greece.

Reasons for the decision

The Commission notes that the present whereabouts of the

applicants are unknown. Therefore the Commission considers that it is

no longer justified to continue the examination of the petition,

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

Moreover, 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 this aspect of the case 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.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant