Published on 17 April 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 27124/22
Fawaz JNEID
against the Netherlands
lodged on 2 June 2022
communicated on 29 March 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is an imam who has been holding religious lectures since the early 2000s. On 15 August 2017 the Minister of Security and Justice imposed, under the Temporary Counter-Terrorism (Administrative Measures) Act (Tijdelijke wet bestuurlijke maatregelen terrorismebestrijding), a six-month area ban on the applicant, preventing him from going to two districts in The Hague where he regularly gave sermons (see Jneid v. the Netherlands, no. 57264/18, communicated on 9 September 2020).
The present application concerns the second, third and fourth six-month extension of the area ban, which were imposed by decisions of the Minister on 13 August 2018, 13 February 2019 and 12 August 2019, respectively. On 2 February 2022 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) of the Council of State (Raad van State) upheld the second and third extension but quashed the decision imposing the fourth extension.
The applicant relies on Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Given that the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State quashed the decision imposing the fourth extension of the area ban, can the applicant still claim to be a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of that extension (see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 259-262, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and J.B. and Others v. Hungary, nos. 45434/12 and two others, §§ 56-59, 27 November 2018)?
2. Was the restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4:
(a) in accordance with the law;
(b) necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 and/or
(c) justified by the public interest, within the meaning of Article 2 § 4 of Protocol No. 4?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1, Article 10 § 1 and Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, were those interferences prescribed by law, serving a legitimate aim, and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2, Article 10 § 2 and Article 11 § 2?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?