CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 septembre 1996

.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. 30471/96                       by Ahmed Hashi WEHELIYE,                       Hodan Mahmoud SAMATAR,                       Amina ADOW and                       Safie Ahmed ALI                       against Hungary          The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 September 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  G.B. REFFI                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ              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 14 March 1996 by Ahmed Hashi WEHELIYE, Hodan Mahmoud SAMATAR, Amina ADOW and Safie Ahmed ALI against Hungary and registered on 15 March 1996 under file No. 30471/96;        Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the President's decision of 15 March 1996 to apply Rule 36 of the      Commission's Rules of Procedure and to communicate the      application, moreover, the subsequent prolongation of application      of Rule 36, as decided upon on 19 April, 23 May and 4 July 1996;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      27 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant, after extensions of the time-limit, on 7 June 1996;   -     the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent      Government on 23 July 1996;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants, apparently born in 1980, 1979, 1982 and 1978, respectively, are citizens of Somalia. At the time of lodging their application, they were detained at the Budapest International Airport Transit Accommodation. In the proceedings before the Commission they are represented by Mr. I. Horváth, a lawyer practising in Budapest.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.        In early March 1996 the applicants left Damascus, Syria, with a view to seeking asylum in Europe. On 5 March 1996, after having allegedly applied for asylum in Milan with the Italian authorities unsuccessfully, they arrived at Budapest International Airport. On 7 March 1996 they lodged an application for refugee status with the UNHCR Branch Office in Budapest.        On 8 March 1996 the UNHCR refused the applicants' request. On 10 March 1996 the applicants forcibly refused to leave Hungary for Damascus.        On 11 and 13 March 1996 Amnesty International, on behalf of the applicants, repeatedly contacted the Ministry of the Interior (Belügyminisztérium) requesting that the applicants be protected and not be returned to Syria.        On 12 March 1996 the Ministry of the Interior, in response to the request of Amnesty International, informed the applicants that the matter was in the UNHCR's competence rather than that of the Hungarian authorities, and that there was no basis in the Aliens Act for the applicants to enter the territory of Hungary.        On 13 March 1996 the applicants again contacted the UNHCR, whose representative, assisted by an interpreter, interviewed them a second time the next day and, on 15 March 1996, requested the Hungarian authorities to permit the applicants' entry into the country as "persons of the concern of the UNHCR". On 18 March 1996 the UNHCR issued certificates to the applicants and requested the Hungarian authorities to grant the applicants provisional residence permits.        On 20 March 1996 the Hungarian authorities issued provisional residence permits to the applicants, who were granted free movement in Hungary and were subsequently placed in the Red Cross Refugees Home in Budapest.        In their submissions of 23 July 1996, the Government state that, according to the UNHCR's report of 15 July 1996, as confirmed by the Ministry of the Interior, the applicants have disappeared from the Red Cross Refugees Home in Budapest and have apparently left Hungary illegally.     COMPLAINTS        The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that their deportation to Syria would expose them to a risk of torture, or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment if they were sent on to Somalia. They further submitted under Article 13 that they did not have the possibility to have their claim under Article 3 of the Convention examined by the Hungarian authorities. Moreover, they complained under Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, about discrimination in expulsion guarantees, on account of their non- European origin.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 14 March 1996 and registered on 15 March 1996.        On 15 March 1996 the President of the Commission decided to apply Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and to communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rules 34 para. 3 and 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, for observations on its admissibility and merits.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 27 March 1996. The observations in reply by the applicant were submitted, after extensions of the time-limit, on 7 June 1996.        On 19 April, on 23 May and on 4 July 1996 the Commission decided to prolong the indication under Rule 36.        On 6 August 1996 the Secretariat informed the applicants' lawyer of the Government's submissions of 23 July 1996, and requested him to submit observations before 2 September 1996. The applicants' lawyer has not reacted to this letter.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        Having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly concerning the applicants' apparent disappearance and the failure of the applicants' representative to comment on this, the Commission concludes that the applicants no longer intend to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.        Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.           H.C. KRÜGER                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                              President      to the Commission                     of the Commission