THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42658/05
Serges MUDIANGOMBE KABASU
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Egbert Myjer,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Serges Mudiangombe Kabasu, is a Congolese national, who was born in 1972 and at the time of the introduction of the application was living in Harderwijk. He was represented before the Court by Mrs L. Vellenga-van Nieuwkerk, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar.
The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision if he were expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who submitted observations in reply.
By letter of 19 June 2012 the Government were requested to submit additional observations and to inform the Court whether or not the applicant was still residing in the Netherlands. On 10 July 2012 the Government submitted the additional observations requested. According to the Government the applicant had left the asylum seekers’ reception centre where he had been staying on 5 May 2005. They further stated that they were unaware of the applicant’s current whereabouts.
By letter of 10 July 2012 the applicant’s representative was asked to submit the applicant’s observations in reply to the Government’s additional observations and to inform the Court about the current whereabouts of the applicant and whether or not the applicant’s representative was still in contact with the applicant.
By letter dated 5 September 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of observations had expired on 22 August 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. The representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Although the signed acknowledgement of receipt-slip contained in the Court’s file shows that this letter was received by the applicant’s representative, to date, no reaction has been received from her.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy