CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application nos. 28244/10 and 32224/11 Nawzad Anwar Rashid BETWATA KHOUSHNAUW against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   December   2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on, respectively, 16   March 2010 and 2 May 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nawzad Anwar Rashid Betwata Khoushnauw, is an Iraqi national who was born in 1948. In his initial application no. 28244/10, the applicant was represented before the Court by Ms M. Timmer, a lawyer practising in The Hague. In his subsequent application no. 32224/11, he was initially represented by Mr S.B. Kleerkooper, a lawyer practising in Hoenderloo, who was succeeded by Ms M. Timmer. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 May 2003, the Minister for Immigration and Integration ( Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie ) rejected the applicant’s request for asylum in the Netherlands, holding Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees against him. The applicant challenged this decision in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final – for the applicant negative – decision was given on 18   September   2009 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State. On 30 December 2009, the Minister for Immigration and Asylum ( Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel ) decided to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on the applicant and, on 10 March 2010, rejected the applicant’s objection ( bezwaar ) against that decision. The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 10 March 2010 was rejected by the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague sitting in ‘s-Hertogenbosch on 28 October 2010. Although the applicant could have filed a further and final appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, he did not do so. COMPLAINTS The applicant alleged a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention on account of the refusal of his asylum request and Article 8 of the Convention on account of the imposition of the exclusion order. THE LAW Given their similar factual and legal background the Court decides that the two applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 2 of the Rules of Court. By a faxed letter of 11 October 2011, the applicant’s representative Ms   Timmer informed the Court that she had lost contact with the applicant and that it was her understanding that he was no longer staying in the Netherlands. The Court is of the opinion that the applicant’s failure to inform his representative of his current whereabouts must be taken as indicating that he has lost interest in pursuing his application. Although it is true that the applicant did authorise Ms Timmer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court, it considers that this authority does not by itself justify pursuing the examination of the case. Given the impossibility of establishing any communication with the applicant, the Court considers that Ms Timmer cannot now meaningfully pursue the proceedings before it (see Ramzy v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25424/05, §§ 64-65, 20   July   2010, with further references). That being so, the Court finds that further examination of the case is not justified. Consequently, the Court concludes that 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 cases out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President