THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43482/04
by Mohamud AHMED SAID
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2004,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mohamud Ahmed Said, is a Somali national who was born in 1985 and is residing in the Netherlands. He was represented before the Court by Mr E.J.P. Cats, a lawyer practising in Emmen. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant entered the Netherlands in 1995, when he was ten years old. At that time his mother and two siblings were already residing in the Netherlands, where they had applied for asylum. The applicant applied for a residence permit for the purposes of residing with his mother.
The asylum application of the applicant’s mother having been finally rejected in May 1999, his request for a residence permit was subsequently also dismissed, with the final decision taken by the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in Zwolle, on 6 November 2001.
On 16 August 2004 an exclusion order (ongewenstverklaring) was imposed on the applicant in view of a number of convictions of criminal offences. Following the rejection of his objection (bezwaar) against the imposition of this order, the applicant lodged an appeal to the Regional Court of The Hague. The Court has not been informed of the outcome of these proceedings.
A second asylum application lodged by the applicant’s mother and his siblings was successful in that they were granted asylum in July 2004. Hereupon the applicant also lodged an application for asylum, but this was rejected, with the final decision taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 13 December 2004.
Meanwhile, on 3 November 2004, the applicant had been placed in aliens’ detention. On 7 December 2004 he was informed that he would be expelled to Somalia the next day. On 8 December 2004 he lodged the present application with the Court and also applied for an interim measure pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. That same day the President of the Chamber indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicant until 27 January 2005. This interim measure was subsequently prolonged.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his expulsion to Somalia would expose him to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
He further complained that the refusal to allow him to reside in the Netherlands constituted an unjustified interference with his right, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, to respect for his family life with his mother and siblings.
Finally, he complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 8.
THE LAW
The applicant originally complained that a forced return to Somalia would violate his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. On 19 March 2008 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy