THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32702/07
by Amadou SANOGO
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 July 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra, judges,
Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Amadou Sanogo, is a national of Côte d'Ivoire who was born in 1981 and lives in Burgum. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Bosma, a lawyer practising in Assen. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant unsuccessfully applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 19 December 2001. The final decision was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 1 March 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he would face a real risk of treatment contrary to that provision if he were to be expelled to Côte d'Ivoire.
THE LAW
Notice of the present application was given to the respondent Government on 21 October 2009.
On 9 February 2010 the Government informed the Court that the applicant would be granted a residence permit with retroactive effect and that the necessary formalities to that end were in the process of being completed.
Subsequently, the Court requested the applicant to comment on the Government's letter and to indicate whether he wished to maintain his application in light of these new circumstances.
On 9 March 2010 the applicant confirmed that he had been issued a residence permit with retroactive effect from 14 March 2009 onwards. He further informed the Court that he wished to continue his application in order to obtain compensation for the time he had spent in the Netherlands without any income. He indicated that the Government had already refused to pay him such compensation.
On 7 April 2010 the Government further informed the Court that they had indeed refused the applicant's request for financial compensation.
It is noted that the applicant originally complained that his expulsion to Côte d'Ivoire would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been issued with a residence permit so that he is no longer at risk of being returned to his country of origin and the matter complained of can therefore be considered resolved.
In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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.
As regards the applicant's request for compensation, the Court reiterates that Article 41 of the Convention allows it to award just satisfaction to the “injured party” only if it has previously “[found] that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto”, which it has not in this case. Accordingly, this request cannot be entertained.
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