THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14126/06
by Saida NIAZI
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Saida Niazi, was an Afghan national who was born in 1938 and lived in Leiden. She died on 9 May 2007. At the time of the introduction of the application, she was represented before the Court by Ms E.J.C. van de Laak of the Benders Advocaten law firm in Zoetermeer. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant arrived in the Netherlands on 23 August 2004.
4. On 25 September 2004 the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie; “the Minister”) rejected the applicant's request for asylum.
5. On 25 September 2004 the applicant filed an appeal (beroep) with the Regional Court of The Hague (rechtbank), sitting in Almelo.
6. On 14 October 2004 the Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal and ordered the Minister to take a fresh decision.
7. On 25 April 2005 the Minister again rejected the applicant's request for asylum.
8. On 19 May 2005 the applicant filed an appeal against the Minister's decision with the Regional Court of The Hague.
9. On 26 September 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, considering that the Minister had correctly assessed that the applicant was not eligible for asylum as it had not been established that she risked persecution within the meaning of the UN Refugee Convention.
10. On 27 October 2005 the applicant filed an appeal in the final instance with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State).
11. On 22 December 2005 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division rejected the appeal on summary grounds for not raising any points of law.
12. According to the death certificate submitted to the Court on 9 March 2010 by a lawyer working for Benders Advocaten the applicant had passed away on 9 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
13. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she would face a real risk of treatment contrary to that provision if she had to return to Afghanistan. The applicant further complained of an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her private life as well as her family life with her only remaining son in the Netherlands, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained that the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State did not constitute an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
14. The Court notes that the present application was communicated to the Government on 28 January 2010.
15. By a letter dated 4 February 2010 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. In its relevant part, this letter reads:
“... the Government has taken note with surprise of the communication of the application, given the fact that the applicant, as a result of her asylum request, was provided with a residence permit, valid from 15 February 2007 until 8 February 2012, and is therefore by no means eligible for expulsion to Afghanistan.
Inasmuch as the applicant has failed to provide the Court with this essential piece of information, the Government suggests that the application be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention for abuse of the right of application or, failing that, struck out of the Court's list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention.”
16. Upon a request to comment on the above information sent by the Court on 24 February 2010 to the applicant's representative, Ms S, a lawyer working for Benders Advocaten replied on 9 March 2010. This letter reads in its relevant part:
“...I kindly request you to take note of the fact that the applicant passed away on 9 May 2007 in Lelystad (The Netherlands). I have enclosed a copy of her certificate of death stated by the municipality of Lelystad. Therefore the application could further be left out of consideration.”
17. It appears from publicly available sources of information that the applicant's original representative left Benders Advocaten on an unspecified date and joined another law firm in the Netherlands.
18. For reasons which were not explained and which the Court cannot fathom, neither the applicant's original representative, nor Ms S. on her behalf, notified the Court of the applicant's demise, or, for that matter, of the fact that the applicant had obtained a residence permit, or of the fact that there had been a change in the legal representation of the applicant before the Court.
19. The Court considers that it was, first and foremost, up to the applicant's legal representative to keep the Court informed about any major developments regarding the case. It notes with regret that, firstly, the representative failed to keep the Court thus apprised and, secondly, that the Court was also not provided with any kind of explanation for this omission.
20. In the circumstances of the present case the Court would further note that there is in any event no information as to whether the applicant's relatives or close members of her family might wish to pursue the application (see, for example, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, with further references).
21. Consequently and considering that there exists no general interest in the present case which necessitates proceeding with the examination of the complaints raised, the Court finds that the conditions in which a case may be struck out of its list, as provided in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, have been satisfied.
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