FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4289/11
Rebwar Abdullah ISMAIL and others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Nicolas Bratza,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 January 2011,
Having regard to the information submitted by the applicants’ representative,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Iraqi nationals living in the United Kingdom. The first applicant, Mr Abdullah Ismail was born in 1953. The second applicant, Ms Ronak Rasul is his wife and was born in 1963. The third applicant, Mr Rebwar Ismail, was born in 1985. The fourth applicant, Master Raber Ismail, was born in 1996. The third and fourth applicants are the sons of the first and second applicant. They were represented before the Court by Ms L. Harvey of Alsters Kelley Solicitors, a lawyer practising in Coventry. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms L. Dauban, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants left Iraq in 1997 and travelled to Germany where, in 1998, they made an unsuccessful asylum application. In January 1999, the applicants travelled to the United Kingdom and submitted a further asylum application which was refused by the Secretary of State in November 2003 when they were administratively removed to Germany. Three or four days later, the applicants returned to the United Kingdom.
On 14 July 2007, the third applicant was arrested on suspicion of the possession of a false passport and, later on the same day, submitted an asylum application. He also claimed that his deportation to Iraq would be in breach of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention because he had been resident and established in the United Kingdom for ten years and had set up two businesses there.
On 13 November 2007, at Sheffield Crown Court, the third applicant was convicted of using a false instrument and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with a recommendation for deportation. On 27 December 2007, he was served with a notice of intention to deport him to Iraq.
On 6 February 2008, the Secretary of State refused the third applicant’s asylum claim and did not accept that he would be at any risk upon return to Iraq. Furthermore, in light of his criminal conviction, it was considered that any interference in his family and private life caused by his deportation would be proportionate to the public interest of preventing crime and disorder. On 14 February 2008, the Secretary of State decided to make a deportation order against the third applicant.
On 10 April 2008, the first, second and fourth applicants lodged asylum applications in their own right which were refused by the Secretary of State on 8 December 2009. In addition, it was not accepted that their removal to Iraq would breach their rights to family life under Article 8.
On 25 and 26 May 2010, the appeals of all four applicants were heard together by a panel of two Immigration Judges sitting at the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. In a determination promulgated on 10 June 2010, their appeals were dismissed.
On 6 June 2010 and 9 August 2010, the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal respectively refused their applications for permission to appeal.
In early June 2011, the third applicant was served with removal directions to Iraq scheduled to take place on 21 June 2011. Those removal directions were cancelled when, on 17 June 2011, the High Court granted a stay on his removal pending his application for judicial review.
B. Subsequent developments
On 9 June 2011, the Vice-President of the Fourth Section decided that notice of the application should be given to the Government and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
On 8 July 2011, the Vice-President of the Fourth Section decided to adjourn the Court’s proceedings having been informed by the Government that there were new domestic remedies available to the applicants.
By letter dated 14 December 2011, the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that the first, second and fourth applicants had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
By letter dated 21 February 2012, the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that the Secretary of State had issued a new decision refusing to revoke the deportation order against the third applicant. They also informed the Court that the third applicant had been granted a further in-country right of appeal before the First-tier Tribunal of the Asylum and Immigration Chamber and had ongoing proceedings at the Administrative Court.
By letter dated 29 March 2012, the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that, due to the ongoing domestic remedies available to him, the applicant wished to withdraw his application before the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their proposed removal to Iraq would be a disproportionate interference with their rights to family and/or private life in the United Kingdom.
THE LAW
By fax dated 29 March 2012, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wished to withdraw the application because the first, second and fourth applicants had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the third applicant had on-going domestic remedies available to him before the First-tier Tribunal of the Asylum and Immigration Chamber and the Administrative Court.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.
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.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy