FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53573/09
Mamajang JALLOW and Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 May 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Paul Mahoney, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 September 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The first applicant, Mr Mamajang Jallow, is a Gambian national who was born in 1980. His current whereabouts is unknown. The second applicant, Mrs Chelsey Jallow, is a British citizen who was born in 1985. The third applicant, Miss Naia Jallow, is a British citizen who was born in 2007. The applicants were initially represented before the Court by Ms H. Weber of Refugee and Migrant Justice (“RMJ”), a non‑Governmental organisation based in London. When RMJ went into administration in June 2010 the applicants did not appoint a new representative.
2. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Tomlinson of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
3. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to deport the first applicant to Gambia would constitute an unjustified interference with their right to respect for their family life.
4. The applicants’ complaint under Article 8 was communicated to the Government, who were invited to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits by 15 September 2010. However, on 18 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that there were ongoing domestic proceedings concerning the proposed deportation of the first applicant. Upon receipt of this information, the Court suspended the deadline for the submission of the Government’s observations.
5. On 27 September 2011 the Court wrote to the applicants at an address provided by the United Kingdom Border Agency. The letter, which was sent by recorded delivery, asked the applicants to inform the Court of the status of the domestic proceedings and, as RMJ had gone into administration, to appoint a new representative by 25 October 2011. The applicants do not appear to have received that letter as the postal service noted that it was “not called for”. In any case, no reply has been received.
6. On 3 December 2012 the Government notified the Court that the first applicant had recently been granted six months’ discretionary leave to remain. They further indicated that there were ongoing family court proceedings in respect of the first applicant which could affect any decision made in respect of his immigration status.
7. As the applicants had not been in contact with the Court since 2010, by letter dated 16 January 2013, sent by registered post, the Court asked them to confirm that they wished to maintain the application and warned them that if they did not reply to the letter the application could be struck from the Court’s list of cases without further warning. The postal service does not appear to have been able to deliver this letter to the applicants and they have made no further contact with the Court.
8. The applicants have not notified the Court of any change of address.
THE LAW
9. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the 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 continued examination of the case.
10. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list, without prejudice to the Court’s power under Rule 43 § 5 to restore cases to its list if it considers that exceptional circumstances so justify.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy