THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44517/09
by Yuusuf HASAN MAHAMED
against the Netherlands and Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 August 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Yuusuf Hasan Mahamed, a Somali national who was born in 1992 and lives in Oisterwijk. He was represented before the Court by Mr R.C. van den Berg, a lawyer practising in Waalwijk. The Dutch Government were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Italian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Spatafora.
The applicant complained, both against the Netherlands and Italy, that he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and of a violation to his right to respect for private life as enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention in case he were expelled from the Netherlands to Italy pursuant to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“the Dublin II Regulation”). He also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, of a lack of an effective remedy in Italy.
On 8 March 2010 the Court decided to give notice to both respondent Governments of the applicant's complaints detailed above.
By letter of 17 May 2010 the Dutch Government informed the Registry that “the [Dutch] Immigration and Naturalisation Service has decided that the Netherlands will be responsible for examining the asylum application of the applicant” and that, “therefore, the applicant will not be transferred to Italy”.
On 30 June 2010 the applicant's representative informed the Court that, in these circumstances, the applicant no longer wished to pursue his application.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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