CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 février 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Application No. 18594/91 by M.M. against the United Kingdom     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 February 1992, the following members being present:   MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President J.A. FROWEIN S. TRECHSEL F. ERMACORA G. SPERDUTI E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK A. WEITZEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS H. DANELIUS Mrs.G. H. THUNE SirBasil HALL MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ C.L. ROZAKIS Mrs.J. LIDDY MM.L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   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 24 July 1991 by M.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 24 July 1991 under file No. 18594/91 ;   Having regard to :     -the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission ;                 -the information provided by the Government on 6 September 1991 ;     -the response of the applicant on 10 January 1992 ;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:         THE FACTS   The applicant is a citizen of Zaire, born in 1955 and resident in London.   He is represented before the Commission by Ms. Nuala Mole, Executive Director of Interights, London.   The applicant claimed to have been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in Zaire from which country he fled.   Medical opinion corroborated the applicant's allegations.   He was refused asylum in the United Kingdom on 15 April 1991.   After a successful application for judicial review, his case was reconsidered, but asylum was again refused on 24 June 1991 because, inter alia, the applicant's story and circumstances resembled that of several other Zaireans who had claimed asylum at the same time and because of various inconsistencies in the applicant's account of events in Zaire.     COMPLAINTS   The applicant originally complained that if he were returned to Zaire he would suffer further severe ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   He claimed that the decision of the United Kingdom authorities to return him to Zaire amounted to a breach of Article 3.   He also complained that he had no effective domestic remedy in United Kingdom law for his Article 3 claim, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 24 July 1991 and registered on the same day.   The applicant requested that the Commission indicate to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that his removal from the United Kingdom be stayed pending the Commission's examination of the case.   The President of the Commission decided on 24 July 1991 that, in view of the urgency of the case with the applicant's imminent removal from the United Kingdom, notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government, in accordance with Rules 34 para. 3 and 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and that they should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. Precedence was also given to the application, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure.   The Government undertook not to remove the applicant to Zaire pending a review by the Home Office of the applicant's case and pending the proceedings before the Commission at that stage.   This undertaking rendered superfluous the applicant's request for an indication under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.   On 6 September 1991 the Government notified the Commission that, in the light of new information they had recently received, they had decided to grant the applicant exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.   On 10 January 1992 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that, in view of this development, the applicant wished to withdraw his application.     - 3 -18594/91       REASONS FOR THE DECISION   The Commission notes that the applicant has been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom and thus the factual basis of his application has been resolved.   Moreover, his request to withdraw his application indicates that he does not intend to pursue his case further.   The Commission finds that the conditions of Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention have been fulfilled and that there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect for Human Rights which require the continued examination of the case.   For these reasons, the Commission unanimously,   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LISTS OF CASES.         Secretary to the CommissionPresident of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)   (C.A. NØRGAARD)