[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> JB v the United Kingdom - 31013/06 [2007] ECHR 1149 (11 December 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/1149.html Cite as: [2007] ECHR 1149

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31013/06
by J.B.
against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall, President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 August 2006,

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 interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr J.B., is an Iranian national who now lives in the United Kingdom.

He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Duheric, a lawyer practising in Glasgow. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom in 2006 and immediately claimed asylum. On 20 June 2006 his claim was refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department via the “fast track” procedure: the applicant claims that this procedure meant that he could not be examined by the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture. His appeal against this refusal was dismissed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on 30 June 2006. A further appeal to a senior immigration judge and an application for reconsideration to the High Court were refused on 5 July and 28 July 2006, respectively, on the basis that the determination contained no error of law.

On 2 August 2006, the applicant lodged an application with this Court and requested an interim measure to prevent his expulsion.

On 11 August 2006 the President of the Chamber to which this application was allocated decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicate to the Government of the United Kingdom that the applicant should not be expelled until further notice.

The application was formally communicated to the Government for their observations on 29 August 2006.

On 17 November 2006, the Secretary of State wrote to the applicant noting that he had provided further evidence to the Court concerning the risk he faced in Iran. The Secretary of State considered it appropriate in the circumstances to invite the applicant to make further submissions setting out the new evidence.

On an unspecified date the applicant submitted additional evidence.

On the basis of these further submissions the Secretary of State considered whether to grant the applicant asylum. Consideration was also given to whether or not he qualified for humanitarian protection.

By letter of 21 June 2007, the Secretary of State refused the applicant asylum but decided to grant him humanitarian protection and limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom for five years.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that his removal to Iran would violate his rights under the Convention. He referred in particular to Article 2 (claiming that his life would be in danger and he would be executed), Article 3 (claiming he would be ill-treated and tortured) and Article 8. He also argued that the “fast track process” under which his asylum claim had been determined meant that he could not be medically examined by the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture.

THE LAW

Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far is it is relevant, provides as follows:

“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a)  the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

On 8 June 2007, the Government informed the Court of the decision to grant the applicant leave to remain in the United Kingdom on humanitarian grounds. The Court requested that they submit copies of relevant decisions and immigration papers. The Court also sent a copy of the Government’s letter to the applicant and requested that he confirm whether he wished to withdraw his application. On 17 July 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court by letter that in light of this decision Mr J.B. had decided to withdraw his application from the Court’s list of cases. On 6 August 2007, the Government submitted the decisions requested by the Court.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3, lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

T.L. Early Josep Casadevall
Registrar President