THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32894/11
Jama ABDULLAHI ISMAEL against the Netherlands
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged between 18 May 2011 and 7 May 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and/or their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. The applicants, whose applications for asylum in the Netherlands were rejected, complained that their expulsion to Somalia would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicants in application nos. 17848/13 and 30268/13 also invoked Article 2 of the Convention in relation to a removal to Somalia. The applicant in application no. 20673/13 further complained under Article 13 that he had not had an effective remedy for his Convention complaint.
3. The applicants requested the Court to indicate to the Government, by way of an interim measure pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that they should not be removed to Somalia pending the proceedings before the Court. The Acting President decided to adjourn the examination of the requests for an interim measure. In all five cases it was further decided that the Government should be invited to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the cases.
4. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications and, after these had been forwarded to the applicants, the latter submitted their observations in reply.
5. In a letter dated 27 March 2014 relating to a different case pending before the Court at that time, also concerning a rejected asylum-seeker from Somalia, the Government wrote to the Court that in 2010 the Netherlands and Somalia had concluded a Memorandum of Understanding, on the basis of which forced returns to Somalia could take place. The present Somali authorities had confirmed this arrangement at the beginning of 2013 and in the course of that year several expulsions to Somalia had taken place. Recently, however, the Somali authorities had requested additional arrangements before cooperating with any further forced returns of Somali nationals. Therefore, at the time of the Government’s letter to the Court, forced returns were not taking place. Voluntary return to Somalia continued to be possible.
6. In reply to questions from a Member of Parliament, the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie) stated on 25 April 2014 that so far no reaction had been received from the Somali authorities to working arrangements proposed by the Dutch authorities in February 2014, and that it was not possible to indicate when the negotiations would be finalised (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Aanhangsel van de Handelingen – Lower House of Parliament, Appendix to the parliamentary record – 2013-2014, no. 1806, p. 1).
THE LAW
7. The Court considers that it is clear from the information submitted by the Government to the Court and by the Minister of Security and Justice to Parliament that the applicants cannot be forcibly removed to any part of Somalia at the present time (see paragraphs 5-6 above); they are therefore currently not at risk of being subjected to the treatment they allege to be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention or of the other Convention provisions invoked by them. There is, in addition, no indication when this situation may change. In these circumstances the Court considers that it would be less than efficient to proceed to an assessment of the present conditions in the receiving country, the more so when it can by no means be excluded that those conditions will have undergone a considerable change by the time the Government decide that removals can take place. For this reason the Court finds that at the present time it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (see I.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 76660/12, 27 May 2014, with further references) and that they should be struck out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Moreover, 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.
8. The Court would additionally observe that not only may domestic law enable the applicants to challenge a future removal in the Netherlands (see I.A. cited above, § 14), they may also, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, seek to have their application to the Court restored should no domestic remedies capable of staying such a removal be available to them.
9. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
32894/11
18/05/2011
Jama ABDULLAHI ISMAEL
15/04/1984
Dronten
S. COENEN
17848/13
12/03/2013
Ismhaan MAHAMUUD
01/01/1992
Venlo
J.J. BRONSVELD
18135/13
13/03/2013
Ibrahim HERSI DIRYE FAARAH
08/11/1993
Delfzijl
Maarten BERG
20673/13
22/03/2013
Mohamed ABDULKHADIR MOHAMED
20/05/1993
Wageningen
M.J. VERWERS
30268/13
07/05/2013
Abdi Fataah HUSEIN ABUUKAR
01/06/1985
Sittard
P. KRAMER-OGRAJENSEK
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy