FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21061/05
by El Sayed Eliwa against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2005,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the terms of the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 December 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having regard to the applicant's response to the Government's unilateral declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr El Sayed Eliwa, is an Egyptian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Birmingham. He is represented before the Court by Tyndallwoods, a firm of solicitors based in Birmingham.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The general background is set out in A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, 19 February 2009.
The applicant claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on 27 March 2000 and on 30 March 2001 he was granted indefinite leave to remain.
On 18 December 2002 the Secretary of State certified the applicant as a suspected international terrorist under section 21 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) and made a deportation order against him. The following day the applicant was arrested and detained at HMP Woodhill.
The applicant was a party to the derogation proceedings referred to in paragraphs 14-23 of A. and Others, cited above.
In addition, on 29 October 2003 he appealed to the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) against the Secretary of State's decision to certify him under section 21 of the 2001 Act and to make a deportation order against him. SIAC dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be the leader of Egyptian Islamic jihad in the United Kingdom and to have been involved in fraud in order to support terrorist activity.
On 31 January 2005 the certificate issued under section 21 of the 2001 Act was revoked and the applicant was released from HMP Woodhill without charge or conditions.
B. Relevant domestic law
See A. and Others, cited above, paragraphs 87-93.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, that his detention was unlawful and discriminatory.
THE LAW
On 7 May 2008 the respondent Government were given notice of the application and were requested to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in respect of the applicant's complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
By a letter dated 9 December 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration and they requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government of the United Kingdom acknowledge that the applicant was detained under powers provided by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and security Act 2001 and that, in light of the reasoning in the judgment of the Grand Chamber in the case of A and Others v the United Kingdom, that detention amounted to a breach of the applicant's right not to be deprived of his liberty save in one of the cases set out in Article 5(1) of the Convention.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they hereby offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant the amount of EUR 2,250 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, and EUR 900 in respect of the applicant's legal expenses, these amounts to be paid in pounds sterling (converted at the rate applicable on the date of settlement) to a bank account named by the applicant within three months from the date of the striking out decision of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention. This payment will constitute the final settlement of this case.
In a letter of 27 January 2010 the applicant stated:
“Mr Ilewah's preference is still to receive a judgment from the Court but he will accept the terms of the Declaration as proposed by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office as long as it is issued in his name and not on an anonymous basis. ... Mr Ilewah is concerned that for the declaration to have any value for him in his future life it needs to show his name. He requests therefore that whether the Court issues a Judgment or whether the matter concludes with a Declaration from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that either be issued with the correct spelling of his name as shown in his Egyptian passport. This is:
El Sayed Eliwa”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the Government and Mr El Sayed Eliwa. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy