SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9246/04
by ZAINULLAH
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting
on 6 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 February 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zainullah, is an Afghan national who was born in 1977 and lives in Afghanistan. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs E. Baltutytė.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In early 2003, the applicant arrived to Lithuania, after having illegally crossed its border with Belarus.
On 6 May 2003 the applicant was apprehended by the police. Subsequently, he applied for asylum. Pending the determination of the applicant’s status, he was allowed to reside in the Aliens Registration Centre, without any restriction on his liberty.
On 11 July 2003 the immigration authorities granted the applicant temporary asylum.
However, as of 22 September 2003, he was detained for 12 months because of a “need to clarify the reasons why the foreigner is using a fake identity document”. The law was not explicit about the possibilities for such a detainee to seek judicial review of the detention order.
The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 24 October 2003. Before the domestic courts, the applicant was represented by a lawyer, who subsequently assisted him in drafting the present application.
On 8 September 2006 the President of the Chamber communicated these aspects of the case to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits on 7 December 2006. They informed the Court that the applicant had, however, already been deported from Lithuania to Afghanistan on 29 March 2004.
The applicant has not contacted the Registry since, and his current whereabouts are unknown. Nor did he authorise the lawyer who had assisted him in the domestic proceedings, and in his application to the Court, to continue the conduct of the present proceedings on his behalf.
COMPLAINTS
Under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, the applicant had complained about his detention. He had also complained that he had been unable to challenge the detention order.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant neither informed the Registry about the imminence of his deportation from Lithuania, nor did he make any complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. He has neither made any contact with the Court since the introduction of the application, nor has authorised his lawyer to do so on his behalf.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 further examination of this application. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy