CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 avril 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          Application No. 21323/94                       by Michael OLOWU                       against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                G. JÖRUNDSSON                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY             Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber          Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 2 June 1992 by Michael OLOWU against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 February 1993 under file No. 21323/94;        Having regard to :   -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the     Commission;     -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      28 July 1993;   -     the absence of any written response from the applicant;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:     THE FACTS        The applicant is a Nigerian national, born in 1944, who at the time of lodging his application was detained, awaiting extradition to the United States of America, in HM Prison Pentonville, London.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:        The applicant is a businessman.   He was arrested on 11 October 1990 at an English airport (unspecified) for being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent importation of drugs.   He was informed on arrest that he could also be wanted in America for drug offences.   The applicant was remanded in custody.   He was acquitted of the English drug charges by the Isleworth Crown Court on 18 September 1991 and immediately re-arrested and remanded in custody for the purposes of extradition to the United States of America on other drug charges.        The Bow Street Magistrates Court authorised the applicant's extradition on 23 January 1992, whereupon the applicant's lawyers filed a habeas corpus application before the High Court.   This application had not been heard when he lodged his application to the Commission.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complained that he was the victim of a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention because the lawfulness of his detention has not been decided speedily by a court and because his release had not been ordered in the meantime.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 2 June 1992 and registered on 3 February 1993.        On 5 May 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the case to the respondent Government.   On 28 July 1993 the Government informed the Commission that, whilst reserving their position on the merits, they did not wish to submit observations on the admissibility of the case.        In the meantime the applicant was extradited to the United States and his whereabouts were unknown. On 16 December 1993 the Commission's Secretariat received a telephone message from the applicant in the United States. He said that he "had won his case in London and wanted compensation".   He gave an address in Lagos, Nigeria, to which he was to go in a week's time.   On 22 December 1993 he was written to at that address, informing him of the Government's position and requesting written confirmation that he wished to maintain his application to the Commission and that he would keep the Secretariat informed of his whereabouts.        He has not replied to that letter or been heard from since.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant has not written to the Commission since the introduction of his application to the Commission in 1992 and that he has apparently succeeded in proceedings in Britain and the United States, given his latest private address in his home country.   Accordingly, the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend pursuing his petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, and that there are no general reasons concerning respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the continued examination of the case pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 in fine.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Second Chamber         President of the Second Chamber          (K. ROGGE)                         (S. TRECHSEL)