FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49277/99
by Ahmet AVCISOY
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 19 February 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 July 1999,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the correspondence of the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ahmet Avcisoy, is a Turkish national born in 1966 and detained in a detention centre in the United Kingdom. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Thompson of Luqmani, Thompson & Partners, solicitors practising in Wood Green, London.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant arrived illegally in the United Kingdom on 20 April 1998 and submitted a claim for asylum on his arrest on 26 April 1998. His application for asylum was dismissed by way of letter dated 13 June 1998 and served upon him on 9 July 1998 with removal directions.
The applicant obtained a medical report and a psychological report dated 11 August 1998. He claimed that he had been arrested and detained on a number of occasions between May 1995 and March 1998 and that he had been subject to torture, including falaka and severe beatings. The psychologist in her report found that he was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a direct result of his experiences in Turkey. In his medical report, the doctor noted inter alia the existence of scars on the applicant’s body consistent with his description of being burned by cigarettes and signs of an injury caused by a sharp object.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of asylum and the appeal was dismissed by the Special Adjudicator on 27 November 1998.
An application for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was submitted but rejected by the Tribunal on 10 February 1999.
An application for leave to move for Judicial Review was lodged against that decision but rejected.
The applicant reapplied for asylum to the Secretary of State by letter dated 7 April 1999.
On 19 May 1999 the Secretary of State refused to reverse his decision of 13 June 1998.
The UNHCR wrote to the Secretary of State on 27 May 1999 and 29 June 1999 asking for various points to be re-examined, particularly as to whether full consideration was given to the medical reports which corroborated the allegations of torture.
Removal directions were set for 2 July 1999 at 17.00 hours.
The applicant’s removal was suspended by the authorities on application by the Court on 2 July 1999 of Rule 39.
After adjournment of the Court’s proceedings pending the determination by domestic courts of an appeal in a related case and the possible withdrawal of the present case, the applicant’s representatives informed the Court by letter dated 16 January 2002 that they had reached agreement with the Government to withdraw the application on the basis that the applicant would receive a right of appeal under domestic legislation (the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) in which he would be entitled to complain that his removal would constitute a breach of his rights under the Convention.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that his removal to Turkey would violate Article 3 of the Convention due to the risk of ill-treatment and torture.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has reached agreement with the Government and wishes to withdraw his application in light of the availability of an appeal in which he can raise his Convention complaints.
The Court finds that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy