CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 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. 14985/89                     by Jamaldeen ASHRAF                     against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                S. TRECHSEL                A. WEITZEL                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY             Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission          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 May 1989 by Jamaldeen ASHRAF against the United Kingdom and registered on 10 May 1989 under file No. 14985/89;        Having regard to :   -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the     Commission;   -     information submitted by the respondent Government on 20 December   1989, 28 May 1992 and 21 September 1993 and comments           by the applicant in reply dated 3 March 1994;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows: THE FACTS        The applicant is a Sri Lankan citizen, born in 1962, who at the time of lodging his application was temporarily resident in Buckinghamshire, England.   He is represented before the Commission by Messrs. Winstanley-Burgess, solicitors, London.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:        The applicant belongs to the small muslim minority (8 % of the population of Sri Lanka).   His family live in southern Sri Lanka in a Tamil neighbourhood and are Tamil sympathisers. Between 1980 and 1982, whilst he was studying, he took part in Tamil separatist movement activities involving military training. He left Sri Lanka in 1982 and worked in Iraq until 1985 contributing part of his salary to the Tamil cause.   He returned to Sri Lanka in September 1985.   Rumour was rife about torture by the Sri Lankan police.   Within a few weeks of his return, the local police were making inquiries about him and arranged for him to attend the local police station for questioning.   He fled to avoid that, arriving in London on 10 November 1985 with a transit visa, purportedly en route for Iraq to work but fully intending to seek asylum in the United Kingdom.   The British immigration authorities considered that the temporary visa had been obtained by false representations and refused entry.   The applicant then applied for asylum which was also refused (reasons unspecified). The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to an adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and his application for judicial review of the latter decision was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal (final decision 16 December 1988).     COMPLAINTS        The applicant originally complained that if he were returned to Sri Lanka, he had good reason to believe that he would face treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   He also complained of an absence of effective domestic remedies for this allegation, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 2 May 1989 and registered on 10 May 1989.        On lodging the application, the applicant requested that the Commission, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, indicate to the respondent Government that it would be in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of proceedings for the applicant's removal to Sri Lanka to be stayed pending the outcome of the Commission's examination of the case.   On 11 May 1989 the Commission decided not to make such an indication.          On 13 July 1989 the Commission considered the admissibility of the application and decided, pursuant to the then Rule 42 para. 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure (now Rule 48 para. 2 (a)), to request documentation from the applicant concerning the reasons for the Home Secretary's refusal of the applicant's asylum request.   The applicant, after having contacted the competent authorities, was unable to provide the information.        On 10 November 1989 the Rapporteur requested that information from the Government pursuant to the then Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure (now Rule 47 para. 2 (a)).        On 20 December 1989 the Government informed the Commission that the applicant's asylum request was being reconsidered. After two reminders from the Commission's Secretariat, the Government informed the Commission on 5 July 1990 that they had awaited certain observations from the applicant's solicitors and would be reaching a final decision soon.   After several further reminders from the Commission's Secretariat, the Government informed the Commission on 28 May 1992 that the Home Secretary had maintained his refusal of asylum, but had exceptionally granted the applicant one year's leave to remain in the United Kingdom.        Further delays then followed while that decision was put into effect, with several requests in the meantime from the applicant's solicitors that the decision be implemented.   An explanation concerning passport difficulties was provided by the Government on 9 July 1993.        A letter dated 21 September 1993 was sent by the Government informing the Commission that the Home Office had been in direct contact with the applicant's solicitors and had informed them that the applicant had been granted one year's leave to remain, which leave would be reviewed at the end of that period.   However this letter did not arrive at the Commission and after a further reminder from the Commission's Secretariat about the case a copy of it was sent on 21 January 1994.        The Secretary to the Commission sent a copy of the letter to the applicant's representatives on 2 February 1994 and asked whether the applicant maintained his case in view of the grant of leave.        The applicant's solicitors replied on 3 March 1994 that the applicant did not wish to pursue his complaint now that there is no longer a threat of him being removed.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant has been granted one year's leave to remain in the United Kingdom and that, therefore, he no longer wishes to pursue his petition before the Commission, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention. The Commission finds that there are no general reasons concerning respect for Human Rights 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 Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)