FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41930/08
Patrick KINGONZILA
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Paul Mahoney, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2008,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Patrick Kingonzila, is a Congolese national, who was born in 1983. He was represented before the Court by Fadiga & Co, a firm of solicitors based in London.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant, then seven years of age, arrived in the United Kingdom from the Democratic Republic of Congo with his parents and siblings on 27 December 1990. He was granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom for twelve months.
4. In 1998 his daughter (“J”) was born.
5. On 23 March 2002, the applicant and his family were granted the right to remain in the United Kingdom on an indefinite basis.
6. On 3 June 2003 the applicant was sentenced to a total of six years’ imprisonment following his conviction for several offences. He already had nine previous convictions for various offences committed between 1996 and 2003.
7. On 25 October 2006 the Secretary of State made a deportation order against the applicant. The applicant appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), relying inter alia on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. His appeal was dismissed on 21 February 2007.
8. On 14 March 2007 a Senior Immigration Judge refused his application for reconsideration of the appeal decision as the Tribunal had properly applied case law, including the relevant case-law of this Court, and there was no arguable error of law disclosed.
9. On 13 December 2007 the applicant applied for asylum.
10. On 23 May 2008 the Secretary of State refused the applicant’s asylum claim and issued a “Decision to Refuse to Revoke the Deportation Order”.
11. The applicant again appealed to the Tribunal which dismissed his appeal in a decision promulgated on 18 August 2008.
12. An application for reconsideration of that decision was refused by a Senior Immigration Judge on 22 August 2008. On 3 October 2008, a Senior Immigration Judge refused to make an order setting aside the decision of the 22 August 2008.
13. On 11 December 2008 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed application for reconsideration.
14. The applicant was scheduled to be deported from the United Kingdom on 9 July 2009. However it appears that removal directions were cancelled and that the applicant remains in the United Kingdom.
B. Further developments
15. On 8 July 2009 the Acting President of the Fourth Section decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that they should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s Article 8 complaint.
16. By letter dated 2 December 2009 the respondent Government confirmed that judicial review proceedings remained pending and sought an adjournment of the application pending completion of those proceedings. On 7 December 2009 the Acting President of the Section acceded to the request for adjournment.
17. By letter dated 5 December 2013 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that the applicant’s judicial review claim had been dismissed and permission to appeal refused. They invited the Court to resume the proceedings.
18. By letter dated 13 March 2014 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that since the refusal of permission to appeal, they had received no further instructions from the applicant and did not know his whereabouts.
19. By letters dated 19 March 2014 the Court wrote to the applicant at the two addresses on file, requiring him to confirm by 9 April 2014 whether he intended to pursue his claim. He was warned that failure to reply by the deadline might lead the Court to conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing the application and to strike it out of its list of cases. The first letter, to an immigration removal centre, was sent by fax only; the second letter, to a residential address, was sent by registered mail.
20. On 20 March 2014 the Court received a fax from the immigration removal centre confirming that the applicant was no longer detained there.
21. On 24 March 2014 the letter sent to the applicant’s residential address was delivered. No response has been received.
22. By letter dated 21 May 2014 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that, as they no longer had instructions from the applicant, they had ceased to act on his behalf and had closed his file.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 7 and 8 of the Convention about his deportation to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
THE LAW
23. The applicant has failed to reply to correspondence from the Court. His representative is no longer instructed by him. In these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing 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 continued examination of the case.
24. 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 AracıGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy