FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53128/20
Arij ABU ZER and Others
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 December 2020,
Having regard to the decision to give priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The first applicant, Ms Arij Abu Zer, is a stateless Palestinian, born in 1993. The two remaining applicants, Ms Layan Hasan Mohamed and Ms Leen Hasan Mohamed, her two daughters, born in 2012 and 2017, respectively, are Jordanian nationals.
The applicants were represented by Mr A. Khalaf, a lawyer practising in Groningen.
Invoking Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, the applicants complained, firstly, that they would end up in a situation of serious material deprivation if they were returned to Greece, where they had been granted international protection prior to applying for asylum in the Netherlands, and, secondly, they argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy.
Upon a request by the applicants, the Court decided on 4 December 2020 to apply an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Dutch Government (“the Government”) that the applicants should not be removed until further notice. The applicants’ case was also granted priority (Rule 41) on the same date.
On 9 March 2022 the Government informed the Court that the applicants had applied for asylum in Iceland on 10 November 2021 and that the competent Icelandic authorities had indicated that they would examine that asylum application on its merits. As the transfer of the applicants from the Netherlands to Greece was thus no longer at issue, the Government requested the Court to strike the present application out of its list of cases.
In a letter of 5 April 2022, the applicants submitted that the Icelandic authorities might yet decide that the applicants should return to the Netherlands. It was also possible that their asylum application in Iceland be declared inadmissible for the reason that the applicants had been granted international protection in Greece, which would once again put them at risk of being returned to the latter country. They therefore requested that the current proceedings be adjourned pending the decision of the Icelandic authorities. Moreover, in the event that their asylum application in Iceland was declared inadmissible or rejected, they expressed the wish that the current application be expanded so as to be directed against Iceland as well.
THE LAW
In view of the above, the Court notes that in the present circumstances the risk, alleged by the applicants, that they would find themselves in a situation in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in Greece as a result of their transfer to that country by the Netherlands has, at least for the time being, been removed (see, mutatis mutandis, Reza Mohammadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 5140/06, 1 June 2006). Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Articles 2 and 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed removal of the applicants from the Netherlands (see Nasseri v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require a continuation of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine.
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list and the application of the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court should be discontinued. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account its competence under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention to restore the case to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course, as well as the possibility for the applicants to lodge an application against Iceland if and when they consider that they are the victims of a breach by Iceland of their Convention rights.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 June 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President