CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8859A5EC { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s52E4ED8D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68C1165D { width:11.08pt; display:inline-block } .sEB0F0D6E { width:170.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF69F396A { width:193.88pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 13919/08 by Maher Muhilddin Gazel Al SHAMSI against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Sction Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2008, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with, Having regard to the information submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT The applicant, Mr Maher Muhilddin Gazel Al Shamsi, is an Egyptian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Eskişehir. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Baba, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The applicant claims that he was accused of involvement in terrorism while in Egypt. He escaped prison in 1991 and subsequently fled the country. Thereafter he lived in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon respectively. He requested refugee status from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) in Beirut and his request was rejected. He fled to Turkey on 9 September 2007. On 16 November 2007 the applicant was arrested in Hatay. He claimed before the Court that his asylum requests were not taken into account at the time of his arrest. The Government asserted that the applicant had not initially claimed asylum. He had stated before the national authorities that he had left Egypt for economic reasons and had paid money to human smugglers to be brought to Istanbul where he aimed to find work. In support of their observations the Government submitted the applicant's statement taken on the day he was arrested. The document is signed, inter alia , by the applicant as well as a translator. On 18 February 2008 the applicant contacted a lawyer who works with the UNHCR in Turkey and stated that he was denied access to the asylum procedure. On 5 March 2008 he contacted the UNHCR office in Ankara and requested to be recognised as a refugee. On 20 March 2008 the applicant requested an interim measure from the Court under Rule 39 § 1 of the Rules of Court. He alleged that his deportation to Egypt would expose him to the risk of unfair trial and subsequent imprisonment, ill-treatment or even death. In this connection the applicant invoked Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. On the same day the Court decided to indicate the interim measure until further notice. The Government were asked a number of questions and both parties were requested to submit relevant documents. On 25 March 2009 the UNHCR interviewed the applicant. The refugee status assessment proceedings are pending before the UNHCR. On 25 March and 9 April 2008 the applicant requested asylum from the Istanbul Security Directorate and the Governorship of Istanbul, respectively. On 5 May 2008 the authorities notified the applicant through the assistance of a translator that he was granted a temporary residence permit in Eskişehir. It appears from the case file that the applicant's wife and children who were in Syria joined him in Eskişehir and were issued with asylum seeker certificates by the UNHCR on 20 June 2008. The applicant's children were registered in local schools. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant has not furnished any proof in support of his claim that he was involved in terrorism in Egypt, that he was imprisoned and escaped in 1991 or that he is currently being searched for by the authorities in Egypt. In this connection, the Court recalls that the applicant's refugee claim has previously been rejected by the UNHCR in Beirut although his subsequent claim is pending before the UNHCR in Turkey. The Court further observes that the applicant, his wife and children have now been granted renewable residence permits pending the asylum proceedings in Turkey. Therefore, at the present time there is no imminent risk of the applicant being deported or the alleged risk of treatment contrary to the Convention materialising since the applicant is not subject to deportation. Consequently, the Court concludes that the applicant no longer faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , N.M. v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42175/05, 18 March 2008, and Carmen Emilia Rojas Arenas v. the Netherlands (dec.), no.   1989/07, 6   September 2007). Having regard to the above considerations the Court therefore considers that this complaint should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, the Court lifts the interim measure previously ordered under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.     Stanley Naismith   Françoise Tulkens   Deputy Registrar   President