F
HKD 384
DECEM
19 APR 1991
DESK OFFICE.
MY
Ли Надия
~ Pand
лх
21/îñ
Foreign & Commonwealth
Office
London SWIA 2AH
Telephone: 071-270 3064
Fax: 071-270 2767
Ms P Edwards
Legal Adviser
Home Office
Queen Anne's Gate
London SW1H 9AT
Dean Put
PA
Acton Taken
21 March 1991
ECHR: OSMAN
V.
THE UNITED KINGDOM
I enclose the Commission's Decision in this case, which I received yesterday.
The Decision is,
1.
of course, a public document. You will see that the Commission declared the application inadmissible "by a majority". The Commission has recently
started the practice of indicating whether or not its decisions are unanimous, but where the decision is a majority one it does not indicate the size of the majority.
2. As usual, the important part of the Decision is that headed "The Law" beginning on page 10. The Commission first dismisses the argument based on the invalidity of the original Hong Kong warrant (the first full paragraph on page 11), and then turns to the main issue, the requisite diligence requirement in Article 5(1)(f). Here the Commission's reasoning is contained in the long paragraph on page 12. Beyond emphasising that the proceedings did not fall within Article 6(1) with its "reasonable time" requirement and that Article 5(1) (f) does not contain specific time requirements, the Commission says little. which helps with the general interpretation of the "requisite diligence" requirement in Article 5 (1) (f). It says that this question must depend upon an examination of the circumstances of the particular case (but then the same is true of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6).
3.
After listing various factors, the Commission states
"Although the applicant's case has taken an extraordinarily long time and his detention has been exceptionally long, the Commission considers that, if the applicant insists on pursuing any avenue of litigation he can find, he cannot complain to the Commission of the passage of time resulting from such proceedings, especially if they are held to be an abuse of the process of the domestic courts,