CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 août 1992

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. August 1992 Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France (preliminary objections) - 17550/90 and 17825/91 Judgment 27.8.1992 Article 34 Victim Direction to two Sri Lankans to leave French territory, after rejection of their request to be granted refugee status: absence of victim status; preliminary objection allowed [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS (applicants were not victims and had not exhausted domestic remedies) No expulsion order made against the applicants, despite the direction to leave French territory (not enforceable in itself) and the rejection of the application by one of them for exceptional leave to remain - if such order were made, it would be possible to bring an appeal with suspensive effect as provided for in section 22 bis of the Order of 2 November 1945 as amended, with all the attendant safeguards - applicants could not, as matters stood, claim "to be the victim[s] of a violation" within the meaning of Article   25 § 1 of the Convention. Conclusion : first objection upheld (unanimously). No need to examine the Government's other submissions.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes