THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39828/03
by Paul Kiyimba SEKASI
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 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 16 December 2003,
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 grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
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 Paul Kiyimba Sekasi, is a Ugandan national who was born in 1972 and lives in Amsterdam. He was initially represented before the Court by Ms J.M. Landsman and subsequently by Ms E.L. Garnett, both lawyers practising in 's-Hertogenbosch. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms J. Schukking and Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and 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 applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 27 November 2002. On 30 November 2002 the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie) rejected that application. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, and also applied for a provisional measure (voorlopige voorziening) in order to be allowed to await the outcome of the appeal proceedings in the Netherlands. On 17 December 2002 the provisional-measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague, sitting in Groningen, dismissed the appeal, finding that the Minister had been correct in rejecting the applicant's request for asylum. The judge also refused to issue a provisional measure.
The applicant did not lodge a further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State). However, on 30 March 2003 he filed a new application for asylum in support of which he submitted inter alia two documents which he had recently obtained and which, according to the applicant, provided evidence of his account.
The Minister for Immigration and Integration rejected the second application on 1 April 2003, considering inter alia that in view of the date of issuance of the two documents, the applicant might have been expected to submit them sooner. The Minister concluded that the applicant had failed to adduce newly emerged facts or altered circumstances. For that reason, pursuant to Article 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht), the second asylum application was refused by referring to the reasons for the rejection of the first. This decision was upheld by the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in 's-Hertogenbosch and, on 17 June 2003, by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.
In a letter of 18 September 2008, the Government informed the Court that, since the closure of the applicant's asylum procedure, several reports had been drawn up with relevance for the applicant's situation. Thus, on 16 August 2004, Amnesty International had issued an individual report (which the applicant had submitted to the Court in support of his application) from which – in conjunction with more general sources, notably from Human Rights Watch – it could be concluded that the applicant's prospects in case of his return to Uganda had deteriorated. The Government further noted the Court's indication to them on 17 June 2008, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be expelled to Uganda for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Bearing those developments in mind, the Government had once again examined the applicant's situation and had concluded that he would indeed be eligible for admission as a refugee, should he lodge an application for asylum under the current circumstances.
The applicant subsequently applied for asylum and was granted a residence permit for that purpose on 14 October 2008.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that his expulsion to Uganda would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 20 October 2008 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw his application in view of the fact that he had been granted asylum.
The Court notes that the applicant has been granted a residence permit, that he is thus no longer at risk of being expelled, and that for this reason he does not intend to pursue his application. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (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 discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy