BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Abdulla HUSSAIN v the United Kingdom - 5648/04 [2009] ECHR 1605 (29 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1605.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1605 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
5648/04
by Abdulla HUSSAIN
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and to the applicant’s wish to withdraw his application,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Abdulla Hussain, is a Sudanese national who was born in 1980 and lives in Longford. He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Savic of Sutovic & Hartigan, a lawyer practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton 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 on 28 August 2002 and claimed asylum on the ground that he feared persecution by Arab militia as he was a “black African Muslim” of the Massaleit tribe from West Darfur. He further submitted that as he had refused to complete his military service, he would be executed as a deserter on return.
On 2 October 2002 the Secretary of State for the Home Department refused the applicant’s asylum claim and on 9 January 2003 an Adjudicator dismissed his appeal. On 27 February 2003 the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal as it found no arguable error of law in the Adjudicator’s determination. The applicant was detained on 20 March 2003. On 4 April 2003 the High Court refused his application for statutory review.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention about his proposed expulsion to Sudan.
THE LAW
By letter dated 7 October 2004 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 8 November 2004.
On 31 August 2004 the applicant’s representatives wrote to the Home Office and asked for the applicant’s case to be considered afresh. On 8 November 2004 the Secretary of State rejected the applicant’s claim and granted him an in-country right of appeal. On 25 August 2005 the Court adjourned the application pending determination of the claim before the domestic courts.
On 7 May 2008 the applicant was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. On 5 June 2008 the applicant’s representative wrote to the Court to confirm that the applicant wished to withdraw his application before the Court. The applicant further requested that an Order for Costs be made against the Government of the United Kingdom.
By letter of 19 June 2008 the Court advised the applicant’s representative that an award of costs and expenses was at the discretion of the Court pursuant to Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court. The applicant’s representative was therefore requested to submit submissions on costs and expenses by 3 July 2008. On 20 April 2009 the Court wrote again to the applicant’s representative, advising her that if the submissions on costs and expenses were not received by 4 May 2009, the Court would strike out the application and make no order as to costs. The applicant’s representative has not replied to the Court’s letters of 19 June 2008 and 20 April 2009.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to make no order as to costs
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President