FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57881/00
by Jeyam SUNTHARAM
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 February 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrsE. Palm, President,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrR. Türmen,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 12 May 2000 and registered on 6 June 2000,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil origin, born in 1977 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, living in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Heringa, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant left Sri Lanka on 28 April 1997 and arrived on 1 May 1997 in the Netherlands where he applied for asylum or, alternatively, a residence permit on compelling humanitarian grounds. On 9 January 1998, the applicant’s asylum request was rejected by the State Secretary of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie). The applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) against this decision.
On 16 March 1998, the applicant was informed that he was not allowed to remain in the Netherlands pending the proceedings on his objection. On 26 March 1996, the applicant requested the President of the Hague Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) sitting in Zwolle to issue an injunction on his expulsion pending the objection proceedings. On 30 June 1998, the applicant filed an appeal with the Hague Regional Court against the failure of the State Secretary to determine his objection timely.
In its decision of 29 September 1998, the Hague Regional Court ordered the State Secretary to determine the applicant’s objection within ten weeks. On the same day, the President of the Hague District Court granted the applicant’s request for an injunction on his expulsion.
On 11 December 1998, the applicant filed a new appeal with the Hague Regional Court against the State Secretary’s failure timely to determine his objection. In its decision of 8 April 1999, the Hague Regional Court ordered the State Secretary to determine the applicant’s objection within six weeks, imposing a default fine of 250 Netherlands guilders for each day that the State Secretary failed to comply with this ruling.
On 4 June 1999, the State Secretary rejected the applicant’s objection against the decision of 9 January 1998. On 30 June 1999, the applicant filed an appeal with the Hague Regional Court sitting in Zwolle. Following a hearing held on 13 December 1999, the Regional Court rejected the appeal on 28 January 2000.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that, if the Netherlands authorities were to expel him to Sri Lanka, he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the Netherlands authorities would violate his rights under Article 3 of the Convention if they were to deport him to Sri Lanka.
Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government submit that the applicant has left the Dutch asylum seekers reception facilities for an unknown destination and has evaded his obligation to report to the authorities. Since 18 May 2000, the Netherlands authorities are unaware of the applicant’s whereabouts.
The applicant’s representative informed the Court on 16 November 2000 that he is no longer in contact with the applicant and that, according to information received by him, the applicant has left the Netherlands for another country.
In these circumstances, the Court finds it established that the applicant does not intend to pursue his 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 examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy