THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48294/10
A.M.
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2010,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated on 23 August 2010 to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,
Having regard to the parties’ factual submissions,
Having regard to the decision of 9 November 2010 to lift the interim measure,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr A.M., is an Afghan national, who was born in 1965 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, living in the Netherlands. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Vermeij, a lawyer practising in Voorburg.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. Between October 2001 and July 2010 the applicant filed five unsuccessful asylum applications in the Netherlands.
4. On 23 August 2010, the applicant’s representative lodged the application with the Court on the applicant’s behalf, complaining that the applicant’s removal to Afghanistan would be in breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. As the applicant’s removal to Afghanistan was scheduled for 23 August 2010, the applicant’s representative also filed a request for an interim measure within the meaning of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to the effect that the Netherlands authorities would stay the applicant’s removal.
5. On the same day the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that – in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings – the applicant should not be expelled to Afghanistan until 22 September 2010. The President further requested the applicant to submit additional factual information, which the applicant did on 10 September 2010.
6. On 16 September 2010 the President decided to prolong the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 until 7 October 2010 and to invite the Government to file comments in reply to the applicant’s submissions of 10 September 2010 by 1 October 2010.
7. On 30 September 2010 the President accepted the Government’s request to prolong until 29 October 2010 the time-limit fixed for filing the requested comments in reply. The President further decided to prolong the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 until 10 November 2010. The Government submitted comments on 29 October 2010.
8. On 9 November 2010 the Court, after having considered the parties’ submissions, decided to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39. The parties were informed accordingly.
9. On 10 November 2010 the applicant filed a fresh request for an interim measure within the meaning of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court aimed at staying his removal to Afghanistan. On 16 November 2010, the President of the Section decided, in the absence of relevant new facts, to reject the applicant’s repeat request for an interim measure. This decision was communicated to the applicant’s representative on 16 November 2010, requesting him to inform the Court whether in these circumstances the applicant wished to maintain his application. On 19 June 2012, after the Court had sent a reminder by registered mail, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wished to pursue the application.
10. On 30 January 2017, in reply to a reminder of the Court sent by registered mail of its request to submit updated information concerning the applicant, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that he had not been able to establish contact with the applicant.
THE LAW
11. 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.
12. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.
Fatoş AracıHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy