Application No. 30471/96
by Ahmed Hashi WEHELIYE,
Hodan Mahmoud SAMATAR,
Amina ADOW and
Safie Ahmed ALI
against Hungary
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
13 September 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
P. LORENZEN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
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 14 March 1996 by
Ahmed Hashi WEHELIYE, Hodan Mahmoud SAMATAR, Amina ADOW and Safie Ahmed
ALI against Hungary and registered on 15 March 1996 under file
No. 30471/96;
Having regard to :
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the President's decision of 15 March 1996 to apply Rule 36 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure and to communicate the
application, moreover, the subsequent prolongation of application
of Rule 36, as decided upon on 19 April, 23 May and 4 July 1996;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
27 March 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant, after extensions of the time-limit, on 7 June 1996;
- the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 23 July 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, apparently born in 1980, 1979, 1982 and 1978,
respectively, are citizens of Somalia. At the time of lodging their
application, they were detained at the Budapest International Airport
Transit Accommodation. In the proceedings before the Commission they
are represented by Mr. I. Horváth, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
In early March 1996 the applicants left Damascus, Syria, with a
view to seeking asylum in Europe. On 5 March 1996, after having
allegedly applied for asylum in Milan with the Italian authorities
unsuccessfully, they arrived at Budapest International Airport. On 7
March 1996 they lodged an application for refugee status with the UNHCR
Branch Office in Budapest.
On 8 March 1996 the UNHCR refused the applicants' request. On 10
March 1996 the applicants forcibly refused to leave Hungary for
Damascus.
On 11 and 13 March 1996 Amnesty International, on behalf of the
applicants, repeatedly contacted the Ministry of the Interior
(Belügyminisztérium) requesting that the applicants be protected and
not be returned to Syria.
On 12 March 1996 the Ministry of the Interior, in response to the
request of Amnesty International, informed the applicants that the
matter was in the UNHCR's competence rather than that of the Hungarian
authorities, and that there was no basis in the Aliens Act for the
applicants to enter the territory of Hungary.
On 13 March 1996 the applicants again contacted the UNHCR, whose
representative, assisted by an interpreter, interviewed them a second
time the next day and, on 15 March 1996, requested the Hungarian
authorities to permit the applicants' entry into the country as
"persons of the concern of the UNHCR". On 18 March 1996 the UNHCR
issued certificates to the applicants and requested the Hungarian
authorities to grant the applicants provisional residence permits.
On 20 March 1996 the Hungarian authorities issued provisional
residence permits to the applicants, who were granted free movement in
Hungary and were subsequently placed in the Red Cross Refugees Home in
Budapest.
In their submissions of 23 July 1996, the Government state that,
according to the UNHCR's report of 15 July 1996, as confirmed by the
Ministry of the Interior, the applicants have disappeared from the Red
Cross Refugees Home in Budapest and have apparently left Hungary
illegally.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that
their deportation to Syria would expose them to a risk of torture, or
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment if they were sent on to
Somalia. They further submitted under Article 13 that they did not have
the possibility to have their claim under Article 3 of the Convention
examined by the Hungarian authorities. Moreover, they complained under
Article 14, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention,
about discrimination in expulsion guarantees, on account of their non-
European origin.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 14 March 1996 and registered
on 15 March 1996.
On 15 March 1996 the President of the Commission decided to apply
Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure and to communicate the
application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rules 34 para. 3
and 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, for observations on its
admissibility and merits.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
27 March 1996. The observations in reply by the applicant were
submitted, after extensions of the time-limit, on 7 June 1996.
On 19 April, on 23 May and on 4 July 1996 the Commission decided
to prolong the indication under Rule 36.
On 6 August 1996 the Secretariat informed the applicants' lawyer
of the Government's submissions of 23 July 1996, and requested him to
submit observations before 2 September 1996. The applicants' lawyer has
not reacted to this letter.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly
concerning the applicants' apparent disappearance and the failure of
the applicants' representative to comment on this, the Commission
concludes that the applicants no longer intend to pursue their
application, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the
Convention.
Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the
Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect
for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the
further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para.
1 in fine of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy