SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42175/05
by N.M.
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2005,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,
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, Ms N.M., an Iranian national who was born in 1969, lives in Kastamonu, Turkey. She was represented before the Court by Mrs D. Abadi, a lawyer practising in New York. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 August 2002 the applicant and her sons entered Turkey illegally.
According to the information provided by the applicant, in 1986 her father shot and killed his brother and was imprisoned. While he was in prison, the applicant’s family faced financial difficulties and the applicant’s mother started working as a prostitute. In 1990, the applicant’s mother was arrested by the police and she was subsequently found guilty of adultery. In October 1990 she was stoned to death. The applicant was married and had a son at the time. Her husband left her following these events. The applicant suffered psychologically as a result of her mother’s death. Her two brothers and her sister committed suicide. In the meantime, the applicant’s father was released from prison. The applicant started living with her father, who continually harassed her. The applicant’s father remarried and later on forced the applicant to marry her stepmother’s father. From this marriage, the applicant had another son.
When the applicant and her sons arrived in Van, she obtained forged documents from a smuggler and registered with the police on the basis of these documents. She then filed an asylum request with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Her asylum request was dismissed by the UNCHR.
In 2004 the applicant left Turkey. The Government submitted that she had left of her own accord whereas the applicant alleged that she had been subjected to an illegal deportation. When she arrived in Iran she did not suffer any persecution from the Iranian police but was sentenced to a fine for leaving Iran illegally. Shortly after this incident the applicant re-entered Turkey illegally. In Van she was caught by the police and she was deported once again. This time, when the applicant arrived at the Iranian Border, she was arrested by the Iranian Intelligence Service. She was accused of being a spy for the Turkish authorities and she was allegedly ill-treated. According to the applicant, she was detained for 27 days before being released on bail.
On 19 December 2004 the applicant and her sons fled to Turkey once again. As she had a false passport, she did not register at the border. This time, she did not stay in Van but went to Kütahya. She again applied to the UNHCR for refugee status.
Towards the end of 2005 the UNHCR agreed to re-open her case. On 21 October 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police. She was released after explaining to the police that her file was under examination by the UNHCR authorities. At the beginning of November 2005 the applicant was interviewed by the UNHCR.
On 17 November 2005 the applicant was contacted by the Kütahya police. She was told to return to Van, to the border where she had illegally entered Turkey.
In December 2005 the applicant moved back to Van.
On 30 January 2006 the UNHCR rejected the applicant’s case. She was informed about this decision on 23 March 2006.
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
On 25 November 2005, the applicant submitted her application to the Court. On 28 November 2005 the Court decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.
By letter and a fax message dated 28 March 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that on 23 February 2007 the UNHCR had granted the applicant and her sons refugee status and submitted copies of the applicant’s and her sons’ “UNHCR Refugee Certificates”.
By a letter 4 June 2007, the Government informed the Court that on 27 April 2007 the Ministry of the Interior had granted the applicants and her sons residence permits valid until 18 August 2007, pending their resettlement in a third country.
By a letter dated 11 October 2007 the Government further informed the Court that on 12 September 2007 the applicant’s and her sons’ residence permits had been renewed until 17 August 2008.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that she was at risk of deportation and that in the event of her return to Iran she would face persecution both from the Iranian authorities and from her family.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that a forced return to Iran would violate her rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant and her sons have now been granted renewable residence permits valid until 17 August 2008 pending their resettlement in a third country. Therefore, at the present time there is no imminent risk of the applicant being deported and the alleged risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 materialising since the applicant is not subject to deportation.
In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (see for example Carmen Emilia Rojas Arenas v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 1989/07, 6 September 2007). Furthermore, with reference to 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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy