Search
document

Document text Analytics

M. and P.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10638/83 • ECHR ID: 001-522

Document date: October 13, 1986

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

M. and P.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10638/83 • ECHR ID: 001-522

Document date: October 13, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

13 October 1986, the following members being present:

MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr F. MARTINEZ

Mr H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 3 November 1983 by

M. and P.P. against the United Kingdom and registered

on 8 November 1983 under file No. 10638/83;

Having regard to

- reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the

Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 2 October 1984 to bring the application

to the notice of the respondent Government without requesting the

parties' observations at that stage pending the outcome of the test

case of Mmes Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom;

- the information provided by the Government on 14 February 1986;

- the applicant's failure to keep the Commission informed of her

intentions regarding the present application;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant is a citizen of Kenya of Indian origin, born in

Kenya in 1954, and lawfully settled in the United Kingdom. The second

applicant is her husband, an Indian citizen, born in 1946. They are

represented before the Commission by Messrs Winstanley Burgess,

Solicitors, London.

The applicants originally complained to the Commission of the refusal

by the British immigration authorities to allow the second applicant

to remain in the United Kingdom. They invoked Articles 3, 8, 13 and

14 (art. 3, art. 8, art. 13, 14) of the Convention.

Following the communication of the application to the respondent

Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules

of Procedure, and the Commission's Report (12.5.83) and the judgment

(28.5.85) of the European Court of Human Rights in the test case of

Mmes Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, the

Government reviewed the applicants' case. On 14 February 1986 the

Government informed the Commission that the second applicant had been

granted twelve months' leave to remain in the United Kingdom

(renewable indefinitely).

The applicants' representatives were then asked whether, in view of

this development, the applicants wished to maintain their application

to the Commission. No reply has been received to this inquiry,

despite a reminder.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicants' complaint has been resolved

by the leave granted to the second applicant to remain in the United

Kingdom and that the applicants have not kept the Commission informed,

through their legal representatives, of their intentions regarding

their case. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the

applicants have lost interest in their application, and that there are

no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention which require its further examination.

For these reasons, the Commission

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