F IRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15455/02 by Samson Bello HASSAN against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr G. Bonello , President , Mr C.L. Rozakis , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mr E. Levits , Mrs S. Botoucharova, Mr A. Kovler, Mr V. Zagrebelsky, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 April 2002,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Samson Bello Hassan, is a Sudanese national who was born in 1964 and lives in Heilbronn (Germany). He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Wingerter, a lawyer practising in Heilbronn. The respondent Government were represented by Mrs G. Skiani, Adviser at the State Legal Council and Mrs V. Pelekou, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Counncil.

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

On an unspecified date the applicant fled Sudan. In 1995 he was residing in Germany where he applied for political asylum. On 12 September 1995 the Stuttgart Administrative Court found that the applicant would face serious violations of his human rights if he returned to Sudan, in view of the fact that he had been away from his country for a long time and had applied for political asylum. Therefore, the court decided that the applicant should not be expelled to Sudan. On 9 October 1995 the applicant was granted a resident's permit, which remained valid for two years. On an unspecified date the applicant left Germany and went to Turkey. On 9 May 1997 he arrived in Greece, where he was arrested by the Greek authorities for drug-related offences. He claimed that the police took and destroyed all his travel documents.

On 25 September 1997 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment and a fine by the Dodecanese first-instance criminal court. On 7 May 1998 the Dodecanese Court of Appeal upheld his conviction and sentence and ordered that the applicant be deported on completion of his sentence. The applicant did not appeal to the Supreme Court against that judgment.

On 9 May 1998 the applicant applied for political asylum in Greece. His request was rejected on 23 October 2001. The applicant was informed that he had the possibility to appeal against that decision before the Minister of Public Order, but failed to do so.

On 25 February 2003 the applicant was released from prison with the view of being expelled. He was detained until 19 August 2003 pending his expulsion.

COMPLAINTS

1 . The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about his threatened expulsion to Sudan. He claimed that his country was a “no-man's land” where his life was in danger. He further submitted that the expulsion order violated his right to liberty and security. He also affirmed that he did not have a fair hearing and that the Greek authorities had decided to expel him without taking into account all the travel documents that he possessed and which were illegally destroyed by the police.

2 . The applicant further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the expulsion order violated his right to freedom of movement.

3 . The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that all the procedural safeguards relating to his expulsion had been breached. He stated that his wish was to be sent back to Germany.

4 . The applicant lastly complained about the conditions of his detention. He claimed that he had been detained in a small dirty cell with seven other inmates and that he had slept on the floor. He did not rely on any specific provision of the Convention.

PROCEDURE

The application was introduced to the Court on 1 April 2002. On 26 March 2003, the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the respondent Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicant to Sudan until the Chamber had had an opportunity to examine the application. On 22 April 2003 the President of the Chamber decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rule of the Court, that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.

On 24 September 2003 the applicant informed the Court that he was released from prison and that his expulsion was temporarily suspended.

On 30 September 2003 the Government submitted their observations on the application.

On 2 November 2003 the applicant informed the Court that he had arrived in Germany and that he had appointed a lawyer to represent him before the Court. The latter confirmed his appointment by letter dated 26 November 2003.

On 20 November 2003 the Chamber reconsidered the application in the light of the information provided by the applicant and decided, in view of that information, not to prolong the interim measure previously indicated under Rule 39 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

On 4 December 2003 the applicant's lawyer was requested to submit his comments in reply to the Government's observations before 26 January 2004. He was also informed that the Court had decided not to prolong the interim measure previously indicated under Rule 39 § 1 of the Rules of Court and was invited to inform the Court whether the applicant wished to pursue his application or agreed to its being struck out of the list. The applicant's lawyer did not reply within the above time-limit, nor did he ask the Court for any extension. On 29 January 2004 the Registry sent him a letter by registered mail recalling the state of proceedings and drawing his attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant's lawyer did not reply.

THE LAW

In light of the above, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Giovanni Bonello Registrar President