FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 25315/09 Hamza Ali FARADOON against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 7 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou, President, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 2009,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant ’ s failure to submit observations in response,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Hamza Ali Faradoon, is an Iraqi national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Croydon. He is unrepresented before the Court. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) is represented by their Agent, Ms. L. Dauban of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the legality and the length of his detention under immigration powers. He also complained that his deportation to Iraq woul d be in breach of Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention.

The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 5 was communicated to the United Kingdom Government and the Government were invited to submit observations by 24 May 2012. The deadline was later extended until 14 June 2012.

On 1 March 2012 the applicant was advised that notice of his complaint under Article 5 had been given to the United Kingdom Government. He was also informed of the need to appoint a legal representative.

The Government submitted its observations on 14 June 2012.

On 15 June 2012 the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant. At the same time, he was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 27 July 2012. The applicant was again reminded of the requirement to appoint a representative and was asked to do so and to submit a co mpleted form of authority by 13 July 2012.

Additional documents were received from the Government on 28 June 2012. A copy of these documents was sent to the applicant on 2 July 2012.

No response or subsequent correspondence was received from the applicant. On 13 August 2012 the Registry wrote to the applicant asking him to appoint a representative and to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of his case by 17 September 2012. He was informed that should he fail to do so, the Court might decide on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the file as it stood. Alternatively, the Court could conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing the application and decide to strike it out of the list of cases.

On 3 September 2012 the Registry received a facsimile from the applicant who stated that he did not have representation and that he had already submitted all of his documents to the Court.

On 11 September 2012 the Registry again asked the applicant to appoint a representative and to submit observations by 9 October 2012, noting that failure to do so might result in his application being struck out or declared inadmissible.

No response from the applicant was received. On 30 October 2012 the Registry reiterated its previous request to the applicant giving him a deadline of 20 November 2012.

On 20 November 2012 the Registry received a facsimile from the applicant who again stated that he did not have representation and that he had already submitted all of his documents to the Court.

On 25 October 2013 the Registry wrote to the applicant and advised him that should he fail to appoint a legal representative and to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of his case by 22 November 2013 it may be struck out from the Court ’ s list of cases.

On 12 November 2013 the Registry received a facsimile from the applicant who again stated that he did not have representation and that he had already submitted all of his documents to the Court.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Fatoş Aracı George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar President