CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 25 février 1997

.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. 33707/96                       by Abdel Kemal TILMATINE                       against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 February 1997, 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                  B. MARXER                  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            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              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 1 October 1996 by Abdel Kemal TILMATINE against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 November 1996 under file No. 33707/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is an Algerian citizen, born in 1965 and resident in London. He is represented before the Commission by Jawaid Luqmani, a solicitor practising in London. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.        The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom in 1993 and applied for asylum. In September 1993 his claim for asylum was dismissed and in May 1994 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal also dismissed his appeal. In November 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal accepted that the applicant was a member of the FIS Islamic Fundamentalist group in Algeria and that he had been involved in a bombing of an airport in which ten persons were killed. The Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal to the House of Lords.        The House of Lords, in a detailed judgment, dismissed his appeal on 22 May 1996. The House of Lords accepted that the applicant had been tried in his absence for, inter alia, the airport bombing, that he had been convicted and sentenced to death and that he risked his life and freedom should he return to Algeria. However, they concluded that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had been right in its conclusion that there were serious reasons for considering that the applicant had committed a "serious non-political crime" in Algeria, that the applicant's case fell within Article 1F(b) of the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 and that he thereby lost any protection which would have been available under the Geneva Convention 1951.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that he faces the execution of a death sentence if expelled to Algeria which sentence was imposed after a trial in his absence. He also complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he runs a real risk on expulsion of treatment contrary to that Article. He also invokes Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission recalls that under Article 30 para. 1(a) and (c) of the Convention it may decide to strike a petition out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue his case or that it is, for any other reason, established by the Commission that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of it. The Commission shall, however, continue its examination of the petition if respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, so requires.        The Commission notes, from the applicant's representative's letter dated 24 December 1996, that the applicant wishes to withdraw his complaint.        It is also noted from that letter that the Home Office have decided not to proceed with the applicant's removal and that the applicant has been granted one year's leave to remain on an exceptional basis. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue that examination.        It follows that the application may be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(a) and (c) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.             H.C. KRÜGER                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                            President      to the Commission                     of the Commission