THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7917/10
Guled HABEBA
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Egbert Myjer,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 February 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Guled Habeba, is a Somali national who was born in 1994 and was living in the Netherlands at the time the present application was lodged. He was represented before the Court by Ms B.J.P.M. Ficq, a lawyer practising in Haarlem. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, both of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained about the decision of the Netherlands authorities to expel him to Italy pursuant to the provisions of Regulation no. 343/2003/EC (“the Dublin Regulation”). He argued that as he was suffering from an adjustment disorder comprising a depression and severe anxieties, returning him to Italy – where he would not be provided with accommodation, reception facilities, health care or means to obtain food – would amount to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
On 10 February 2010 the President of the Section decided to indicate to the Government 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 (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) until 3 March 2010. This interim measure was prolonged on 24 February, 7 April, 25 May, 15 June, 6 July and 31 August 2010.
On 11 October 2011, in the light of information provided by the parties as well as by the Government of Italy, the Chamber decided to lift the interim measure. The parties as well as the Government of Italy were informed accordingly, and the applicant’s lawyer was further informed that, if no information to the contrary was received by 8 November 2011, it would be assumed that the applicant did not wish to maintain his application and agreed to its being struck out of the list. When this time-limit expired, no reaction from the applicant’s representative had been received.
THE LAW
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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy