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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy