FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55338/09
by W.S.
against Iceland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2009,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr S., is an Afghan national who was born in 1977 in Afghanistan and lives in Reykjavik. He is represented before the Court by Mr Arnar Thór Jónsson, a lawyer practising in Reykjavik.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Factual background to the applicant's entry into Iceland
The applicant's difficulties in Afghanistan dated back to September 1996 when the Taliban forces captured the City of Kabul. The Taliban arrested him and tortured him for 48 hours and did so several times again during the ensuing months. Whilst the Taliban accused him of having assisted the Mujahedeen guerrillas, members of the latter accused him of having betrayed them. In 1997 he felt compelled to leave Afghanistan and fled to Iran.
In late 2001 the applicant went to Turkey, where he stayed until May 2002. Thereafter he entered Greece where he immediately applied for asylum. He studied and obtained language degrees at Greek universities and pursued gainful employment.
While in Greece he was once attacked by Afghans and he felt persecuted by Afghans. For reasons of personal safety he left the country.
2. The applicant's request for asylum in Iceland and related proceedings
In June 2008 the applicant arrived in Iceland and applied for asylum.
On 24 March 2009 the Directorate of Immigration, relying on the Dublin Regulation (for a summary of the relevant European Union law, notably the Dublin Regulation (“Dublin II”) applicable to all European Union Member States, Norway and Iceland, reference is made to K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32733/08, ECHR 2008‑...), refused to consider the merits of the applicant's asylum application and decided that he should be deported to Greece.
On 14 May 2009 the applicant appealed to the Ministry of Justice, which decided to stay the implementation of his expulsion pending review of the conditions of asylum seekers in Greece.
Following a report of June 2009, acknowledging shortcomings in the asylum procedure and poor living conditions of asylum seekers in Greece, the Icelandic authorities decided to proceed with deportations back to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation on the basis of an individual assessment in each case. According to the report, regard should be had to whether the asylum seeker's human rights would be secured in Greece, especially in the case of vulnerable persons such as the unhealthy and unaccompanied children, and whether there was a danger of the asylum seeker being deported to a third country where it was likely that he or she would be subjected to ill-treatment. In the event of a hazardous situation, the 'sovereignty clause' in Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation was to apply, whereby the Icelandic authorities would take responsibility for the processing of the asylum application.
On 21 September 2009 the Ministry of Justice upheld the Directorate's decision to deport the applicant to Greece. The police sought on 14 October 2009 to arrest him with a view to deportation but were unable to find him.
On 16 October 2009 the President decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Icelandic Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be expelled to Greece until further notice.
3. Other particulars pertaining to the applicant's situation
A medical certificate relating to the applicant's medical consultations of 26 June 2009 and 23 October 2009 reiterated that he had been diagnosed with depression, Bell's Palsy and Tinnitus and that while in Iceland he had continuously pursued medical treatment in order to maintain his mental and psychological health. As a result of shock from torture in Afghanistan, he had suffered from essential tremor, chronic headache and anxiety. He needed medication.
A psychologist statement of 6 September 2009 affirmed that the applicant had been hospitalised on many occasions because of his illness, which had resulted in sleeplessness, nightmares, stress, nerves disorder and other symptoms.
The applicant further submitted that he had established a family in Iceland, being in a serious relationship with an Icelandic woman and assuming the role of father for her four children.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that his expulsion to Greece, if effected, would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, firstly because of the dire condition and treatment of asylum seekers in Greece and secondly because of the great risk that the Greek authorities would refoul him to Afghanistan. In his home country his life would be at great danger, those who had tortured him in the past were still after him and it was unlikely that he would obtain the medical treatment he needed. Moreover, in Greece there were no effective procedural safeguards protecting him against being removed to Afghanistan. The applicant also relied on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3, Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
THE LAW
On 31 May 2010 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw his application since the Icelandic Directorate of Immigration had on 25 May 2010 granted him a residence permit in Iceland on humanitarian ground. He had thereby “received full remedy [...] in Iceland”.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy