Published on 19 April 2021
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 46534/14
Sadik ABOUBAKER
against the Netherlands
lodged on 23 June 2014
communicated on 31 March 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns immigration detention. The applicant has been under an obligation to leave the Netherlands since the rejection of his asylum request in 1985 and the imposition on him of an exclusion order in 1992. He has a history of substance abuse and criminal offences (thefts) and on the date of introduction of his application to the Court he had already spent numerous periods in criminal detention and in immigration detention with a view to his expulsion. The applicant holds no documents to prove his identity and nationality and, by using thirteen aliases and claiming alternately that he originates from Morocco, Algeria and Libya, has frustrated the authorities’ attempts to establish his identity and nationality. The presentations of the applicant at the embassies of those respective countries, organised by the Dutch authorities, have up until now not resulted in the issuance of a laissez‑passer or other travel document, making it so far impossible to remove him.
The applicant complains that the period of immigration detention that lasted from 5 March 2013 to 17 January 2014 had not been justified in the absence of a realistic prospect of his expulsion, taking into account the numerous previous unsuccessful attempts to expel him. He further alleges that the fact that the Regional Court, after so many previous periods of immigration detention, again concluded that this detention had been lawful demonstrates that the available remedy is ineffective. He invokes Articles 5 § 1 (f) and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s immigration detention between 5 March 2013 and 17 January 2014 in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention?
In particular, were the deportation proceedings being pursued with ‘due diligence’(see Feilazoo v. Malta, no. 6865/19, §§ 106–108, 11 March 2021), having regard also to the existence of previous periods of immigration detention (see J.N. v. the United Kingdom, no 37289/12, § 105, 19 May 2016)?
More concretely, has the existence of such previous periods of detention an impact on what is expected from the competent domestic authorities when employing due diligence in attempting to secure the applicant’s deportation?
2. Was there a realistic prospect of deportation during the aforementioned period?
Alternatively, was the applicant’s deportation still feasible, making the efforts to secure it not “bound to fail” (see Tabassum v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 2134/10, § 22, 24 January 2012)? Or, had the applicant’s deportation “for all practical purposes become virtually impossible” (see Abdi v. United Kingdom, no. 27770/08, § 74, 9 April 2013)?
What concrete steps were taken in order to enforce the applicant’s deportation and what results did they have?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 5, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy