THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39352/98
by Rosa Innis Agudelo VELASQUEZ
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 11 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 September 1997 and registered on 14 January 1998,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the Court’s decision of 25 January 2000 to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention to the Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Rosa Innis Agudelo Velasquez, is a Colombian national, born in 1955. She is represented before the Court by Stones, a firm of solicitors practising in Newbury. The respondent Government are represented by Ms R. Mandal, Agent of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant grew up in Colombia. She was mentally and sexually abused as a child. In May 1977 she arrived in the United Kingdom and was given leave to enter until May 1979. Further leave to remain was refused in July 1979. However, she remained in the United Kingdom where she worked and developed close links with her employers and the local Jehovah’s Witnesses community.
Unknown to the applicant, in May 1983 the Secretary of State signed a notice of intention to deport her, that notice was considered as having been “served” and on 30 August 1983 a deportation order was signed.
In November 1994 she applied for indefinite leave to remain relying on the “residence concession” (14 years or more of continuous residence in the United Kingdom). On 31 May 1996 the Secretary of State refused her application for indefinite leave to remain and to revoke the deportation order on the basis that residence after the making of the deportation order did not normally count towards the 14 year qualifying period and because her circumstances were not considered so exceptional as would justify exercising discretion in her favour.
The applicant then requested leave to apply for judicial review of the refusal to revoke the deportation order challenging, inter alia, the practice of serving notices of intention to deport “on file”. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected her application. In April 1997 she was informed that she had to leave for Colombia on 4 May 1997. She did not leave the United Kingdom on that date.
On 17 November 1997 the applicant was examined by a clinical psychologist who concluded, inter alia, that there was a compelling clinical case for the applicant to remain in the United Kingdom, that her associations with her country of origin were troubled, that her support network in that country was non-existent, that she was fragile and vulnerable and no longer young enough to simply start life again and that she would face major trauma and possibly suicide if deported.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that her removal to Colombia would constitute treatment contrary to Article 3 and an unjustifiable interference with her right to respect for her private life (including her physical and moral integrity) guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. She also complained under Article 14 about a discriminatory difference in treatment and under Article 13 about a lack of an effective domestic remedy.
THE LAW
On 25 April 2000 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention.
By letters dated 17 October and 17 November 2000 the Government stated that the Secretary of State had decided to revoke the deportation order and to grant the applicant indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Government also offered to discharge her legal representatives’ costs in the sum of 6,000 pounds sterling (GBP) in full and final settlement of the application. They requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.
By letters dated 28 November 2000 and 4 January and 8 May 2001 the applicant’s representatives confirmed the applicant’s agreement to have her case struck out of the list of cases on that basis but they specified various time-limits by which those legal costs were to be received. By letter dated 25 June 2001 the applicant’s representatives confirmed receipt of the agreed costs from the respondent Government and, by letter dated 10 July 2001, they confirmed that the application could consequently be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court notes that the matter raised in the application has been resolved. 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 examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy