FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 46014/06
by Islam Israpilovic ABDUSALAMOV
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrR. Maruste,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 November 2006,
Having regard to the decisions not to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the information obtained from the respondent Government and the comments submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Islam Israpilovic Abdusalamov, is a Russian national of Chechen origin who was born in 1978. He was represented before the Court by Mr Martin Rozumek, of the Organisation for Aid to Refugees, Prague.
The applicant was detained in Chernokozovo prison in the Chechen Republic from 16 May 2003 to 16 May 2005. Before his detention, he had been arrested and kept by Chechen police for ten days. According to him, during his detention, he was humiliated and treated inhumanly. He then confessed that he had distributed arms to Chechen fighters.
On 16 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic found the applicant guilty of illegal distribution of arms to Chechen fighters and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. He was released on 16 May 2005. After his release, he allegedly continued to be persecuted by the Chechen police. He refused to collaborate with the police and fled from Russia to Poland in January 2006. He asked for asylum, but his request was repeatedly refused.
In October 2006, as he was at risk of being immediately expelled, he left Poland for the Czech Republic where he applied for asylum. At the same time, he requested the Czech authorities to examine his request for international protection under Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 (“the Dublin II Convention”) arguing that if expelled to Poland, the Polish authorities would remove him to Russia.
On 15 November 2006 the Czech immigration authority decided to expel the applicant and forbid him to enter the Czech Republic for a period of one year. It also informed him that a decision on his request for international protection would be delivered to him on 21 November 2006. On that day, the applicant’s representative received a faxed letter from the Director of the Department for Asylum and Migration Policies informing him that the aforesaid decision would not be delivered to him on 21 November 2006 and that he would be informed in time about the new date of deliverance.
During the asylum procedure, the applicant was accommodated in the Vyšní Lhoty admission asylum centre where his HIV infection was detected. Moreover, he was recovering from hepatitis B.
On 6 December 2006 the applicant left the admission centre to undergo medical treatment in Prague. According to him, the Ministry of the Interior was willing to prolong his visa expiring on 4 January 2007 provided he stayed in the admission centre where, according to him, the medical care was insufficient. He added that if he returned to the centre, he would be detained and deported to Poland.
On 18 December 2006 the decision of 15 November 2006 to expel the applicant was cancelled.
COMPLAINTS
1. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention the applicant initially complained that the Czech Republic had not granted him an exception from the Dublin II Convention and had ordered his expulsion to Poland where he risked to be removed to Russia. He also complained that he had not been provided with a sufficient medical care and forced to move to Poland where had had not been adequately medically treated. The applicant further complained that while the authorities had discovered that he had been incurably ill, he had continued to be detained in an extreme uncertainty to be at any time expelled either to Poland of Russia.
2. Invoking Article 5 § 4 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had been deprived of his liberty while it had been clear that there had been no speedy judicial review of decision depriving him of his liberty.
THE LAW
Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”
By a letter of 10 April 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court Registry that his client wished to withdraw his application. He indicated that:
“Mr. Abdusalamov arrived in Prague and obtained an expulsion order from a court in Prague. He decided not to appeal against the expulsion order. Consequently, Mr. Abdusalamov was detained in the detention centre in Frýdek-Místek. I was informed by the Ministry of the Interior that the Ministry scheduled a date of transfer of Mr Abdusalamov to Poland based on the EC Regulation 343/2003 (Dublin Regulation). Furthermore, Mr. Abdusalamov decided to withdraw his asylum application in the Czech Republic.
Then, I discussed the case with the Ministry of the Interior last week and I was reassured that the Polish asylum authorities will review the case of Mr. Abdusalamov and take into consideration all new facts. In such a situation, we ask the Court to terminate the proceedings concerning his application no. 46014/06.”
The aforesaid letter was transmitted to the Czech Government with a request to submit any comments which they might wish to make.
In a letter of 27 April 2007 the Government replied in the following terms:
“... I have the honour of observing that the case can certainly be struck out of the Court’s list of cases according to Article 37 § 1 letter a) of the Convention or declared inadmissible according to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
The applicant’s wish to withdraw the application is consistent with his clearly expressed intention not to ask the Czech authorities for international protection. Therefore, he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. Moreover, nothing tends to suggest that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires a continued examination of the present application submitted against the Czech Republic.”
In the light of the present circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy