THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15195/04
by Feisal HADJI
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 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 Feisal Hadji, was a Somali national who was born in 1977 and lived in Rotterdam. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Vellenga-van Nieuwkerk, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar. 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.
On 2 June 1993 the applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands, submitting that, because he belonged to the minority Ashraf population group, his life in Mogadishu was made unbearable. The Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) refused the asylum application on 2 May 1994. However, in view of the applicant's age, he was granted a residence permit pursuant to the policy relating to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. This permit was valid until 2 May 1995.
The applicant unsuccessfully sought an extension of his residence permit on 11 December 1995, the Deputy Minister considering inter alia that as the applicant had been convicted on four occasions of theft and threats of violence, he posed a danger to public order. The final decision, upholding the Deputy Minister's decision, was taken by the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in Zwolle, on 17 November 1999.
On 11 March 2002 the Netherlands Deputy Minister of Justice imposed an exclusion order (ongewenstverklaring) on the applicant.
Arrangements were made for his expulsion to the Puntland region of Somalia, via Nairobi (Kenya) and Mogadishu, which was scheduled to take place on 30 April 2004. On 29 April 2004 the applicant introduced the present application to the Court. He further requested the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to indicate to the Government not to expel him pending the proceedings before the Court. That same day, the President of the Chamber 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. Thereupon, the Netherlands authorities suspended the applicant's expulsion.
On 25 August 2008 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the application was being withdrawn as the applicant had died.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his expulsion would expose him to a real risk of death, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, the applicant submitted that the manner of his expulsion constituted a violation of Article 3.
He further complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention of a period spent in aliens' detention. The applicant also complained under Article 13 taken together with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in that he had not been able to lodge a new request for asylum. Finally, the applicant complained that his expulsion to Puntland would constitute a breach of Article 14 because he hailed from southern Somalia and belonged to a minority clan.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has died and that his representative wishes to withdraw the application.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy