THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38766/03
by Ibrahim Yacoub YOUSSEF and Others
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
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 applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Ibrahim Yacoub Youssef, Farha Kawri Charro, Nour Youssef and Limor Youssef, are Syrian nationals who were born in 1971, 1975, 1996 and 1998 respectively and are living in the Netherlands. The first two applicants are husband and wife, and the parents of the third and fourth applicants. They were represented before the Court by Ms H. Postma, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Schukking, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants arrived in the Netherlands on 31 March 1999 and unsuccessfully applied for asylum. The final decision was taken by Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Leeuwarden, on 6 June 2003.
The applicants’ representative informed the Court on 13 October 2007 that the applicants had been granted a residence permit pursuant to the terms of a general amnesty (generaal pardon) for rejected asylum seekers who had applied for asylum before 1 April 2001, which amnesty had entered into force on 15 June 2007. She failed to reply to the Registry’s subsequent question – sent by both regular and registered mail – whether or not the applicants wished to maintain their application.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants originally complained that their expulsion to Syria would expose them to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Under Article 13 of the Convention they further complained about an alleged lack of effectiveness of domestic remedies.
THE LAW
The applicants complained that a forced return to Syria would violate their rights under Article 3 of the Convention and that the domestic proceedings had violated their rights under Article 13. However, the Court notes that the applicants have now been granted a residence permit in the Netherlands and that they are thus no longer at risk of being expelled. Moreover, it appears that they do not intend to pursue their 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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy