CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 25 janvier 1985

.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 }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the application lodged by Mr Mohammed Zamir against the United Kingdom (Application No. 9174/80);   Whereas, on 21 December 1983, the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas, in his application introduced on 23 October 1980, the applicant complained that he was a victim of a practice of summary detention of illegal entrants without adequate judicial control, that the legal rules governing his arrest and detention were uncertain and not reasonably foreseeable, and that the proceedings before the courts did not involve a decision as to the "lawfulness" of his detention invoking Article 5, paragraph 1 and paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1, art. 5-1-f), and Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 13 July 1982;   Whereas the Commission, in its report adopted on 11 October 1983, examined whether the applicant was lawfully detained as a person against whom action was being taken with a view to deportation within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1-f), whether the applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court as required by Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and if so whether the proceedings were conducted speedily within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);   Whereas the Commission expressed the opinion, by eleven votes and one abstention, that the applicant was lawfully detained under Article 5, paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1-f), as a person against whom action was being taken with a view to deportation, and that therefore there has been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), that the applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court as required by Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and unanimously that the proceedings in the present case were not conducted speedily, and that therefore there had been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention in this respect;   Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Committee of Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it accepted the Commission's findings and that, as stated in paragraph 115 of the Commission's report, the Rules of the supreme court concerning habeas corpus were amended in 1980 in order to facilitate an early hearing;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention,   a.       Decides that in this case there has not been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the convention;   b.       Decides that in this case there has not been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention, insofar as the applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court;   c.       Decides that in this case there has been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention insofar as the proceedings were not conducted speedily;   d.       Decides that no further action is called for in this case.