OLOWU v. THE UNITED KINGDOM



                      Application No. 21323/94

                      by Michael OLOWU

                      against the United Kingdom

     The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber)

sitting in private on 13 April 1994, the following members being

present:

          MM.  S. TRECHSEL, President

               H. DANELIUS

               G. JÖRUNDSSON

               J.-C. SOYER

               H.G. SCHERMERS

          Mrs. G.H. THUNE

          MM.  F. MARTINEZ

               J.-C. GEUS

               M.A. NOWICKI

               I. CABRAL BARRETO

               J. MUCHA

               D. SVÁBY

          Mr.  K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 2 June 1992

by Michael OLOWU against the United Kingdom and registered on

3 February 1993 under file No. 21323/94;

     Having regard to :

-    reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

of the    Commission;

-    the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

     28 July 1993;

-    the absence of any written response from the applicant;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is a Nigerian national, born in 1944, who at

the time of lodging his application was detained, awaiting

extradition to the United States of America, in HM Prison

Pentonville, London.

     The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties,

may be summarised as follows:

     The applicant is a businessman.  He was arrested on 11

October 1990 at an English airport (unspecified) for being

knowingly concerned in the fraudulent importation of drugs.  He

was informed on arrest that he could also be wanted in America

for drug offences.  The applicant was remanded in custody.  He

was acquitted of the English drug charges by the Isleworth Crown

Court on 18 September 1991 and immediately re-arrested and

remanded in custody for the purposes of extradition to the United

States of America on other drug charges.

     The Bow Street Magistrates Court authorised the applicant's

extradition on 23 January 1992, whereupon the applicant's lawyers

filed a habeas corpus application before the High Court.  This

application had not been heard when he lodged his application to

the Commission.

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complained that he was the victim of a

violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention because the

lawfulness of his detention has not been decided speedily by a

court and because his release had not been ordered in the

meantime.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The application was introduced on 2 June 1992 and registered

on 3 February 1993.

     On 5 May 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the case

to the respondent Government.  On 28 July 1993 the Government

informed the Commission that, whilst reserving their position on

the merits, they did not wish to submit observations on the

admissibility of the case.

     In the meantime the applicant was extradited to the United

States and his whereabouts were unknown. On 16 December 1993 the

Commission's Secretariat received a telephone message from the

applicant in the United States. He said that he "had won his case

in London and wanted compensation".  He gave an address in Lagos,

Nigeria, to which he was to go in a week's time.  On 22 December

1993 he was written to at that address, informing him of the

Government's position and requesting written confirmation that

he wished to maintain his application to the Commission and that

he would keep the Secretariat informed of his whereabouts.

     He has not replied to that letter or been heard from since.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

     The Commission notes that the applicant has not written to

the Commission since the introduction of his application to the

Commission in 1992 and that he has apparently succeeded in

proceedings in Britain and the United States, given his latest

private address in his home country.  Accordingly, the Commission

finds that the applicant does not intend pursuing his petition,

within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention,

and that there are no general reasons concerning respect for

Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the

continued examination of the case pursuant to Article 30 para.

1 in fine.

     For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

     DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second

Chamber

       (K. ROGGE)                        (S. TRECHSEL)

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy