FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 67449/11
L.M.
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 31 October 2011,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,
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 L.M., is a Zimbabwean national, who was born in 1977. The President granted his request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Duncan Lewis, 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 was granted a visit visa for the United Kingdom. He entered the United Kingdom on 21 January 2007.
4. He sought asylum in March 2007. His claim was refused in May 2007. He appealed the refusal but his appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
5. The applicant made further submissions in January 2009, which were accepted as a fresh claim for asylum. The fresh claim was refused in October 2010. He appealed the refusal but his appeal was dismissed by the First-Tier Tribunal on 9 December 2010. The Tribunal considered itself to be bound by, and quoted extensively from, a recent country guidance case on Zimbabwe.
6. The applicant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Permission was refused on 16 February 2011 by a Senior Immigration Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal, and on 1 June 2011 by the Upper Tribunal.
7. The applicant made further representations on 27 and 28 October, which were rejected on 30 October 2011. He also sought judicial review of the decision to remove him, which was refused by the High Court on 28 October 2011.
8. He submitted representations under Article 8 on 31 October 2011, which were rejected.
9. His removal was scheduled for 21 November 2011.
B. Subsequent developments
10. On 14 November 2011 the Acting President of the Section decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicate that the applicant should not be deported until further notice. Notice of the application was given to the respondent Government and they were invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 6 March 2012 the President of the Fourth Section decided to adjourn the proceedings pending a Court of Appeal judgment in a domestic country guidance case.
11. By letter dated 6 March 2014 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that they were no longer acting for the applicant since they had been without instructions since June 2013. They confirmed that they did not have an address for him.
12. By registered mail letter dated 11 March 2014 the Court wrote to the applicant at the address on file and required him to confirm by 1 April 2014 whether he wished to pursue his application. He was warned that failure to reply might lead the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. The letter was delivered on 15 March 2014. No reply has been received.
COMPLAINT
13. The applicant complained that his removal to Zimbabwe would endanger his life and safety and thus breach Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
14. 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.
15. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and 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