SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 3373/06
by Anvar MOHAMMADI
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 August 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 January 2006,
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 apply Rule 40 of the Rules of Court to the above application,
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 Anvar Mohammadi, is an Iranian national who was born in 1947. He currently lives in Canada. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Saeedi, who resides in the Netherlands. The Government did not appoint an agent to represent them.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 October 2000, the applicant, followed by his wife and children on 23 October 2000, entered Turkey illegally. According to the information provided by him, he was a political activist against the regime in Iran and a member of the Democratic Kurdistan Party. In this connection, he submitted an Iranian Court order of 2001, concerning the confiscation of his property on account of his collaboration with the said party and for his illegal departure from Iran.
On 13 November 2000, the applicant filed an asylum request with the Turkish authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR).
On 30 January 2003 his asylum request was dismissed by the UNCHR.
On 4 May 2005 the Ministry of the Interior rejected his asylum application.
On an unspecified date, he again applied to the UNCHR. His request was dismissed on 13 September 2005 and his file was closed.
The applicant continued to send letters to the UNCHR and consequently his case was reopened.
On 20 January 2006 he was arrested at Ankara Airport while trying to leave the country.
On 22 January 2006 he lodged his application with the Court and requested not to be deported to Iran.
On 26 January 2006 he was given a residence permit in Turkey which was valid until August 2006, in order to facilitate his participation in the domestic proceedings in Turkey.
On 1 March 2006 he was recognised as a refugee by the UNCHR.
On 29 May 2006 he was arrested by Turkish police in Van.
On the same day, his representative filed an urgent action with the Court. He stated that the applicant had been recognised as a refugee by the UNCHR and had a residence permit in Turkey until 10 August 2006. He requested the Court to stop the applicant’s deportation.
On 31 May 2006, the Acting President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be deported to Iran until further notice. On the same day, the Acting President also decided to apply Rule 40 of the Rules of Court (urgent notification of an application) to the present case. Accordingly, the Government were requested to submit factual information by 12 July 2006.
COMPLAINTS
Without invoking any Article of the Convention, the applicant complained about his possible removal to Iran, where he would allegedly be subjected to torture and sentenced to the death penalty.
THE LAW
The applicant alleged that his life would be in danger had he been deported to Iran. He did not rely on any Article of the Convention in this respect. However, the Court finds it appropriate to examine the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
On 12 July 2006 the Government submitted their observations together with supporting documents. They maintained that on 22 June 2006 the UNCHR had informed them that the Canadian Embassy in Turkey had accepted the applicant’s request for resettlement in Canada and that he was in the process of completing the formalities required by the Canadian authorities.
In a subsequent letter dated 11 October 2006, the Government further submitted that the applicant would be heading to Canada on 12 October 2006 from Istanbul Ataturk Airport and that if the applicant had failed to submit his passport or valid papers, relevant travel documents would be prepared for him and his family in order to facilitate their departure.
Finally, on 24 January 2007, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had left Turkey for Canada on 12 October 2006. They accordingly asked the Court to strike the application out of its list, as it was no longer justified to continue its examination within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
In a letter dated 12 February 2006, the applicant’s representative stated that he would maintain the application. He submitted that he wished to provide the Court with further information regarding his personal situation and the problems he had encountered in Turkey as the applicant’s representative. He further maintained that the applicant was under medical care in Canada and sent a medical report showing that the applicant suffered from pain in his lower back.
The Court notes that, in the present case, the applicant’s complaint was related to his possible deportation from Turkey to Iran. The Court observes that the Turkish Government complied with the interim measure indicated by the Court and halted the deportation. They further facilitated the travel arrangements of the applicant, who has now resettled in Canada. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.
Accordingly, the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to the present case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy