THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32431/09
by Naiem KHAWARIN
against the Netherlands and Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Christos Rozakis,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 June 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Naiem Khawarin, is an Afghan national who was born in 1992. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Timmer, a lawyer practising in The Hague.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 24 March 2009. This application was rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) on 29 April 2009, as it was considered that pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“the Dublin Regulation”) the Greek authorities were responsible for the processing of the asylum application. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in Almelo, on 4 June 2009. The applicant then lodged an objection (verzet) against the Regional Court’s decision with that same court, and also sought a provisional measure in order to be allowed to await the outcome of the objections proceedings in the Netherlands.
B. Events after the introduction of the application
On 24 June 2009 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government of the Netherlands that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicant from their territory pending the proceedings before the Court (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). At the same time, a number of questions were put to the Government of Greece under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court.
On 25 June 2009 the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court rejected the request for a provisional measure. The Court has not been informed of any decision taken on the applicant’s objection.
The Greek Government’s replies to the questions put by the President were received on 7 August 2009.
The applicant’s representative informed the Court on 31 July 2009 that her client had left for an unknown destination and that she was unable to submit an authority form for legal representation signed by him. In reply to a question from the registry, the representative stated in a fax dated 14 August 2009 that it appeared that her client was no longer interested in pursuing his application and that, therefore, she was unable to continue the proceedings before the Court. The representative was twice requested to submit the hard copy of her fax, bearing her original signature, but to date this letter has not been received by the Court.
Following a request thereto made by the Government of the Netherlands on 28 August 2009, the Chamber decided on 1 September 2009 to lift the interim measure previously indicated under Rule 39 § 1.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained that his expulsion by the Dutch authorities to Greece would be in violation of Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention. He further complained that the treatment to which he had been, or would be, subjected in Greece was in breach of Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the application of the Dublin Regulation to his request for asylum.
In spite of the fact that the applicant’s representative has failed to provide the Court with the hard copy of her fax of 14 August 2009 – in which she stated that she was unable to continue the proceedings before the Court –, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant’s failure to inform his representative of his current whereabouts must be taken as indicating that he has lost interest in pursuing his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Given the impossibility of establishing any communication with the applicant, the Court considers that the representative cannot now meaningfully pursue the proceedings before it (see, mutatis mutandis, Sevgi Erdoğan v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003, and Ali v. Switzerland, judgment of 5 August 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V, p. 2149, § 32).
In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, 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.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy