AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20846/92
by David VIGNA
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 14 April 1994, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
E. KONSTANTINOV
D. SVÁBY
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 9 October
1992 by David VIGNA against the United Kingdom and registered on
26 October 1992 under file No. 20846/92;
Having regard to :
- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Commission;
- information provided by the applicant's representatives on
17 January 1994;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Sri Lankan national, born in 1961, who
at the time of lodging his application was detained in H.M.
Prison Elmsley, Kent. He was represented before the Commission
by Ms L. Christian, solicitor, Messrs Christian Fisher & Co.,
solicitors, London.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties,
may be summarised as follows:
The applicant originally complained to the Commission of the
refusal by British authorities to grant him asylum, and of their
decision to deport him back to Sri Lanka, following his
conviction and sentence in the United Kingdom for a serious drug
smuggling offence.
On 9 October 1992 he was refused leave by the High Court to
bring judicial review proceedings of these decisions.
The applicant was returned to Sri Lanka. He possessed a
valid travel document obtained from the Sri Lankan High
Commission in London prior to his deportation, some time in May
1993 (exact date unknown). On arrival in Sri Lanka he was met
by lawyers, arranged by the applicant's British solicitor. He
was detained for three hours for questioning and then released.
He has not been heard from since, other than a letter to his
solicitor saying that he had no money and did not know what to
do. As far as is known, he has remained at liberty.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained to the Commission that
his deportation to Sri Lanka would constitute a breach of Article
3 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 9 October 1992 and
registered on 26 October 1992.
On 16 October 1992 the Commission decided not to indicate
to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules
of Procedure, that the applicant's deportation to Sri Lanka
should be stayed.
On 2 July 1993 the Commission decided to give notice of the
application to the respondent Government. However, this decision
was annulled on 8 July 1993 when the respondent Government
informed the Commission that the applicant had by then been
returned to Sri Lanka with no significant difficulty on arrival.
This information was confirmed by the applicant's solicitor.
Consequently the Commission also decided on 8 July 1993 to
adjourn its examination of the application pending any
developments in the case.
On 17 January 1994 the applicant's solicitor informed the
Commission that she had received no instructions from the
applicant to proceed with this matter and that, therefore, the
application was not maintained.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant returned to Sri
Lanka, apparently without facing any significant difficulties on
his arrival. It also notes that he has given no instructions to
his solicitor concerning the pursuit of his application and that,
therefore, it is not maintained. In these circumstances, the
Commission finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his
petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the
Convention. It also finds no general reasons concerning respect
for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which warrant the
retention of the case.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the
Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy