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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 20846/92                     by David VIGNA                     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 9 October 1992 by David VIGNA against the United Kingdom and registered on 26 October 1992 under file No. 20846/92;        Having regard to :   -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the     Commission;   -     information provided by the applicant's representatives on      17 January 1994;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows: THE FACTS        The applicant is a Sri Lankan national, born in 1961, who at the time of lodging his application was detained in H.M. Prison Elmsley, Kent.   He was represented before the Commission by Ms L. Christian, solicitor, Messrs Christian Fisher & Co., solicitors, London.        The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:        The applicant originally complained to the Commission of the refusal by British authorities to grant him asylum, and of their decision to deport him back to Sri Lanka, following his conviction and sentence in the United Kingdom for a serious drug smuggling offence.        On 9 October 1992 he was refused leave by the High Court to bring judicial review proceedings of these decisions.        The applicant was returned to Sri Lanka.   He possessed a valid travel document obtained from the Sri Lankan High Commission in London prior to his deportation, some time in May 1993 (exact date unknown).   On arrival in Sri Lanka he was met by lawyers, arranged by the applicant's British solicitor.   He was detained for three hours for questioning and then released. He has not been heard from since, other than a letter to his solicitor saying that he had no money and did not know what to do.   As far as is known, he has remained at liberty.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant originally complained to the Commission that his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 9 October 1992 and registered on 26 October 1992.        On 16 October 1992 the Commission decided not to indicate to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, that the applicant's deportation to Sri Lanka should be stayed.        On 2 July 1993 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government.   However, this decision was annulled on 8 July 1993 when the respondent Government informed the Commission that the applicant had by then been returned to Sri Lanka with no significant difficulty on arrival. This information was confirmed by the applicant's solicitor. Consequently the Commission also decided on 8 July 1993 to adjourn its examination of the application pending any developments in the case.          On 17 January 1994 the applicant's solicitor informed the Commission that she had received no instructions from the applicant to proceed with this matter and that, therefore, the application was not maintained.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant returned to Sri Lanka, apparently without facing any significant difficulties on his arrival.   It also notes that he has given no instructions to his solicitor concerning the pursuit of his application and that, therefore, it is not maintained.   In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   It also finds no general reasons concerning respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which warrant the retention of the case.        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)