Search
document

Document text Analytics

ZAMIR AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 9174/80 • ECHR ID: 001-49255

Document date: January 25, 1985

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

ZAMIR AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 9174/80 • ECHR ID: 001-49255

Document date: January 25, 1985

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention

relating to the application lodged by Mr Mohammed Zamir against the

United Kingdom (Application No. 9174/80);

Whereas, on 21 December 1983, the Commission transmitted the said

report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three

months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the

convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the

European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of

the convention;

Whereas, in his application introduced on 23 October 1980, the

applicant complained that he was a victim of a practice of summary

detention of illegal entrants without adequate judicial control, that

the legal rules governing his arrest and detention were uncertain and

not reasonably foreseeable, and that the proceedings before the courts

did not involve a decision as to the "lawfulness" of his detention

invoking Article 5, paragraph 1 and paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1,

art. 5-1-f), and Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the

convention;

Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on

13 July 1982;

Whereas the Commission, in its report adopted on 11 October 1983,

examined whether the applicant was lawfully detained as a person

against whom action was being taken with a view to deportation within

the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1-f), whether the

applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before

a court as required by Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and if so

whether the proceedings were conducted speedily within the meaning of

Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);

Whereas the Commission expressed the opinion, by eleven votes and one

abstention, that the applicant was lawfully detained under Article 5,

paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1-f), as a person against whom action was being

taken with a view to deportation, and that therefore there has been no

breach of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), that the applicant was

able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court as

required by Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and unanimously that

the proceedings in the present case were not conducted speedily, and

that therefore there had been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 4

(art. 5-4), of the convention in this respect;

Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Committee of

Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it

accepted the Commission's findings and that, as stated in

paragraph 115 of the Commission's report, the Rules of the supreme

court concerning habeas corpus were amended in 1980 in order to

facilitate an early hearing;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the convention,

a. Decides that in this case there has not been a violation of

Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the convention;

b. Decides that in this case there has not been a violation of

Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention, insofar as the

applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before

a court;

c. Decides that in this case there has been a violation of

Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention insofar as the

proceedings were not conducted speedily;

d. Decides that no further action is called for in this case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant