CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 août 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s42ECCBFB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C23B4C7 { width:6.99pt; display:inline-block } .sE9FED4F7 { width:166.58pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40524/10 Naima MOHAMMED HASSAN against the Netherlands and Italy and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   August 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President , Alvina Gyulumyan, Guido Raimondi, Corneliu Bîrsan, Luis López Guerra, Nona Tsotsoria, Johannes Silvis, judges , and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged against both the Netherlands and Italy between 19 July 2010 and 14 February 2013, Having regard to the interim measures indicated in the applications to the Netherlands Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that these interim measures have been complied with, Having regard to the factual information submitted by the Netherlands and/or Italian Government and the comments in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and/or their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Italian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Spatafora, and their Co-Agent, Ms P. Accardo. A.     The circumstances of the cases 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, the Italian Government and the Netherlands Government, may be summarised as follows. Some of the facts are in dispute between the parties. 1.     Application no. 40524/10 3.     The applicant is a national of Somalia, who was born in 1985 and hails from Adado (central Somalia). At the time of the introduction of the application, she was staying in Middelburg, the Netherlands. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Stoetzer-van Esch, a lawyer practising in Lent. 4.     The applicant entered Italy on 1 March 2009, landing on the coast of Sicily. She was transferred to a reception centre for asylum seekers ( Centro di Accoglienza per Richiendenti Asilo ; “CARA”) in Borgo Mezzanone, Foggia province. On 10 March 2009, with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant applied for international protection at the Foggia police headquarters ( questura ), stating inter alia that she was single. Her interview with the Foggia Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection ( Commissione Territoriale per il Riconoscimento della Protezione Internationale ) was scheduled for 13 May 2009. 5.     On 7 April 2009, the Borgo Mezzanone reception centre informed the Foggia prefecture, the Foggia police headquarters and the Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection that the applicant as well as nine others had left the centre. 6.     In its decision of 25 February 2010, having noted that the applicant had left for an unknown destination as confirmed by the local police headquarters on 6 May 2009, the Foggia Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection dismissed the applicant’s request for international protection. 7.     In the meantime, the applicant had travelled to the Netherlands where she had arrived in the beginning of May 2009 and applied for asylum on 15   May 2009. The examination and comparison of her fingerprints by the Netherlands authorities generated a Eurodac “hit” report on 7 September 2009, indicating that she had been registered in Foggia on 3 March 2009. 8.     In the applicant’s first interview with the Dutch immigration authorities, held on 8 July 2009, she stated inter alia that she had married on 5 May 2007, that her husband’s name was Naasir Yaasiin Hassan and that they had no children. She has last seen him in Adado and believed that he was still there. She explained that she had travelled to Italy via Ethiopia, Sudan and Libya. On 28 February 2009 she and others had travelled from Libya to Italy by boat, which had taken two days. She confirmed that she had applied for asylum in Italy. She stated that she had not been provided with a residence permit in Italy, that – after having stayed for a month in a reception centre for asylum seekers in Foggia – she had gone to Naples and later to Turin whence she had travelled to the Netherlands where she had arrived on 5 or 10 May 2009. 9.     In the applicant’s further interview with the Dutch immigration authorities, held on 9 September 2009, she stated inter alia that she had left Somalia because a member of one of the marauding gangs known as moryaan had been bothering her although he knew that she was married. When she had refused his advances, he and another man had come to her mother’s restaurant seeking to abduct the applicant. This other man had then shot and killed her mother. Some days later, her brother had shot and killed the man who had bothered her as well as the man who had killed her mother. She had then left Somalia. During the boat trip from Libya to Italy she had seen the cousin of her mother’s murderer on board and he had recognised her. He had also stayed in the Foggia asylum seekers centre, and she had understood that the reason he was there was to take revenge on her and her family and that also the brother of her mother’s murderer was staying in Italy. That was the reason why she had left the asylum seekers centre and had gone to the Netherlands. She had not informed the Italian authorities about this. 10.     On 9 February 2010 the Netherlands authorities asked the Italian authorities to take back the applicant in accordance with Article 16 § 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) no. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“the Dublin Regulation”). As the Italian authorities failed to react to that request within two weeks, they were considered under Article 20 § 1 of the Dublin Regulation as having implicitly acceded to that request. 11.     The applicant’s asylum request filed in the Netherlands was rejected on 2 March 2010 by the Minister of Justice ( Minister van Justitie ) who found that, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for the processing of the asylum application. The Minister rejected the applicant’s argument that the Netherlands could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust ( interstatelijk vertrouwensbeginsel ) in respect of Italy as there were, according to the applicant, sufficient concrete indications that Italy failed to respect its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees. The Minister further rejected the applicant’s argument that she risked treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in Italy. 12.     On 20 May 2010, the applicant married Mr M.A.H., a Somali national, in a traditional Islamic ceremony conducted in Rotterdam. It does not appear from the case file that this religious marriage was preceded by a civil marriage contracted before the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages ( ambtenaar van de burgerlijke stand ), as required under Netherlands domestic law (see below §§ 160-161). 13.     The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 2 March 2010 and her accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on 14 July 2010 by the provisional-measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague sitting in Zutphen. The judge did not consider the applicant’s arguments based on Article 8 of the Convention, finding that – given the strict separation in the system under the Aliens Act 2000 ( Vreemdelingenwet 2000 ) between asylum-based and regular residence permits – asylum proceedings offered no scope for these arguments to be entertained by the court. 14.     On 22 July 2010, the applicant filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ). In its ruling of 24 November 2011, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division accepted this appeal. It noted that the applicant had relied as from the outset on documents containing general information, namely inter alia two articles published in the (Netherlands) Newsletter on Asylum and Refugee law ( Nieuwsbrief Asiel- en Vluchtelingenrecht ) on Italy (no. 7, August 2004) and on the Italian asylum system in the context of European Union legislation (no. 3, June 2009), the “ECRAN weekly update” of 30 May 2008 of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (“ECRE”), the report “Pushed back, pushed around” published by Human Rights Watch in September 2009, the Amnesty International country reports 2007 and 2008 on Italy, the report “Italy, a briefing to the United Nations Committee against Torture” of April 2007, a report of Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, drawn up on 16 April 2009 following his visit to Italy from 13-15 January 2009, the draft resolution of the European Parliament of 27   January 2009 and proposals to amend Council Directive 2003/9 of 27   January 2003 (“the Reception Directive”) and to revise Council Regulation (EC) no. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“the Dublin II Regulation”). In view of the Court’s judgment of 21 January 2011 in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011), the Administrative Jurisdiction Division found that these documents had not been examined in the manner as described in the M.S.S. judgment. As it did, however, not find any reason for reaching a different decision in the applicant’s case, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division decided that the legal consequences of the impugned decision of 2   March 2010 were to remain intact ( rechtsgevolgen geheel in stand blijven ). No further appeal lay against this decision. 15.     The application was introduced to the Court on 19 July 2010. On 23   July 2010, the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicant to Italy. This indication was initially limited in time. On 15 November 2010, the President decided to prolong the Rule 39 indication until further notice. 16.     On an unspecified date in November 2010, the applicant gave birth to a son named Maahir Mohammed Hassan. On 28 February 2012, the applicant gave birth to a second son, named Madar Naasir Yaasiin. According to the latter’s birth certificate, his father is Naasir Yaasiin Hassan. The applicant explained that Madar’s father, Mr M.A.H., who holds a Netherlands residence title and whom she married on 20 May 2010 in the Netherlands, is the child’s actual father. However, he cannot recognise his paternity as the applicant is officially still married in Somalia. Divorce proceedings had started but these would take time as her first husband was living in Somalia. 17.     On 13 March 2012, a number of factual questions were put to the Government of Italy (Rule 54 § 2 (a)), which concerned the applicant’s situation in Italy before her arrival in the Netherlands. The Italian Government submitted their replies on 14 May 2012 and the applicant’s comments in reply were submitted on 19 June 2012. 2.     Application no. 41993/10 18.     The applicant is a national of Somalia, who was born in 1981 and hails from Yagoori (northern Somalia). At the time of the introduction of the application, she was staying in Luttelgeest, the Netherlands. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. Blaas, a lawyer practising in ‘s-Hertogenbosch. 19.     The applicant entered Italy on 8 October 2008, landing on the coast of Lampedusa, where the local police registered her as having illegally entered the territory of the European Union. On 12 October 2008, she was transferred to a reception centre for asylum seekers in Campomarino Lido, Campobasso province. On 13 October 2008, with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant applied for international protection at the Campobasso police headquarters, stating inter alia that she was married to Yusuf Ali Gedi and that she had left and could not return to her country of origin because of the civil war. Apart from his first name, she did not give more details about her husband in Somalia. 20.     In its decision of 2 February 2009, the Caserta Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection granted the applicant a residence permit for the purpose of subsidiary protection. This decision was served on the applicant in person on 21 March 2009. She was provided with a residence permit for an alien having been granted subsidiary protection and a travel document. Both the residence permit and the travel document were valid until 9 April 2012. 21.     On an unspecified date, the applicant left the Campomarino Lido asylum seekers reception centre. 22.     The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 19 April 2009. On 27 August 2009, previous attempts on 19 April 2009 and 15 July 2009 having failed due to the poor quality of her fingerprints, the examination and comparison of her fingerprints by the Netherlands authorities generated a Eurodac “hit” report, indicating that she had been registered in Lampedusa (Italy) on 11 October 2008. 23.     In the applicant’s first interview with the Dutch immigration authorities, held on 8 July 2009, she stated inter alia that, in May 2008 and after the death of her first husband, she had married Yusuf Ali Gedi and that he had remained in Somalia. She further stated that she had left Italy in March 2009. She stated that, after having stayed in an asylum seekers centre for six months and after she had been granted an Italian residence title, the Italian authorities had turned her out onto the streets. As for a weak woman like herself this was dangerous, she had decided to go to the Netherlands. 24.     On 27 October 2009, the lawyer representing the applicant in the Netherlands proceedings on her asylum request informed the Netherlands immigration authorities inter alia that the applicant had been found to be suffering from hepatitis B for which treatment was temporarily impossible as she was eight months pregnant. 25.     On 14 December 2009, the applicant gave birth to a son named Ajuub Haali Ayanie. He did not suffer from hepatitis B. 26.     On 27 January 2010 the Netherlands authorities asked the Italian authorities to take back the applicant in accordance with Article 16 § 1(c) of the Dublin Regulation. As the Italian authorities failed to react to that request within two weeks, they were considered to have implicitly acceded to that request. 27.     On 26 February 2010, the applicant’s asylum request filed in the Netherlands was rejected by the Minister of Justice who found that, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for the processing of the asylum application. The Minister rejected the applicant’s argument that the Netherlands could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust in respect of Italy as there were, according to the applicant, sufficient concrete indications that Italy failed to respect its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees. The Minister further rejected the applicant’s argument that she risked treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in Italy. 28.     The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 26 February 2010 and her accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on 30   June 2010 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Zutphen. 29.     On 26 July 2010, the applicant filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. In its ruling of 11 November 2011, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division accepted this appeal. It noted that the applicant had relied as from the outset on documents containing general information, namely inter alia the report “Italy, a briefing to the United Nations Committee against Torture” of April 2007, the Amnesty International country reports 2007 and 2008 on Italy, and a report of Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, drawn up on 16 April 2009 following his visit to Italy from 13-15   January 2009. In view of the Court’s judgment of 21 January 2011 in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011), the Administrative Jurisdiction Division found that these documents had not been examined in the manner as described in the M.S.S. judgment. As it did, however, not find any reason for reaching a different decision in the applicant’s case, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division decided that the legal consequences of the impugned decision of 2   March 2010 were to remain intact. No further appeal lay against this decision. 30.     The application was introduced to the Court on 26 July 2010. On 27   July 2010, the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicant to Italy until further notice. 31.     On 13 March 2012, a number of factual questions were put to the Government of Italy (Rule 54 § 2 (a)), which concerned the applicant’s situation in Italy before her arrival in the Netherlands. The Italian Government submitted their replies on 14 May 2012 and the applicant’s comments in reply were submitted on 20 June 2012. 3.     Application no. 57531/10 32.     The applicant is a national of Somalia, who hails from Dinsoor (southern Somalia) and claims that he was born in 1995. At the time of the introduction of the application, he was staying in Tilburg, the Netherlands. He was represented before the Court by Mr W. Spijkstra, a lawyer practising in Beetsterzwaag. 33.     The applicant entered Italy on 29 March 2009, landing on the coast of Portopalo (Syracuse province, Sicily). The next day, his fingerprints were taken at the Syracuse police headquarters where he was registered as having illegally entered the territory of the European Union. He was registered as Mohamud Mohamed, born in Somalia on 1 January 1989. 34.     On 31 March 2009, he was transferred to a reception centre for asylum seekers in Bari. On 16 April 2009, with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant applied for international protection at the Bari police headquarters. He stated that his name was Mohamed Ahmed Mohamud, that he was born on 1 January 1989 in Xawali Barbare, Dinsoor District, Somalia and that he was single. The applicant personally signed his asylum application. On 21 April 2009, the applicant’s fingerprints were taken again, this time at the Bari police headquarters and he was registered as an asylum seeker. He was provided with a temporary residence permit as an asylum seeker on which document a passport photograph was affixed. This renewable permit had a validity of twenty days. 35.     In its decision of 21 May 2009, the Bari Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection granted the applicant a residence permit for the purpose of subsidiary protection. This decision was served on the applicant in person on 28 May 2009 at the Bari police headquarters. At the same time, he was provided with a residence permit for an alien having been granted subsidiary protection. This permit was valid until 20 May 2012 and bears the applicant’s signature. 36.     On 30 June 2009, the applicant left the Bari asylum seekers reception centre. 37.     The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 31 August 2009. According to the information given in the standard personal data form, as completed and signed by the applicant himself on 31 August 2009, his family name was Mohamed Ahmed, his first name Mohamud and he was born in 1995 in Dinsoor Bay, Somalia. In an interview with a police officer held on 1 September 2009, during which the applicant was assisted by an interpreter, he confirmed the information set out in the personal data form he had completed the day before. He further stated that he had arrived in the Netherlands on 30 August 2009 on a flight from Nairobi. 38.     On 17 September 2009, the applicant as well as the “Nidos” Foundation, which acts as guardian for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, were informed that a first interview would be held with him on 7   October 2009 and that his asylum request would be dealt with by the Unit responsible for handling asylum requests for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Should the applicant so wish, his guardian could attend the interview. 39.     The examination and comparison of the applicant’s fingerprints by the Netherlands authorities generated a Eurodac “hit” report on 7 October 2009, indicating that he had been registered in Syracuse on 30 March 2009 and in Bari on 21 April 2009. In a further interview with a police officer on 7 October 2009, the applicant confirmed his personal details, but wished to change his account about his journey to the Netherlands. He stated that in 2007 or 2008 he had travelled from Somalia – via Ethiopia and Sudan – to Libya from where he had travelled in a rubber boat to Italy. After the Italian authorities had taken his fingerprints for a second time, they had turned him out onto the streets and he had then travelled via France and Brussels to the Netherlands. 40.     In the applicant’s first interview with the Netherlands immigration authorities, held on 7 October 2009, he stated inter alia that he was a minor although he had no documents to demonstrate this. He confirmed that he had been granted an Italian residence permit with a three years’ validity. He had thrown this document away after his arrival in the Netherlands. He further stated that, although he had wished to stay longer in the Italian reception centre, he and others had been turned out onto the streets. After a period in which he had led a wandering existence in Rome, he had travelled to the Netherlands via France and Belgium. 41.     In his further interview held on 16 December 2009, the applicant stated that he had not applied for asylum in Italy and that his fingerprints had been forcibly taken there. He confirmed that he had been provided with a kind of travel document in Italy but, because he had no confidence in the system, he had thrown it away. 42.     On 28 April 2010, the applicant’s asylum request filed in the Netherlands was rejected by the Minister of Justice who found that, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for the processing of the asylum application. 43.     The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 28 April 2010 and his accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on 27 July 2010 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Almelo. The judge held that the Minister had correctly asked the Italian authorities on 30 M arch 2010 to take back the applicant in accordance with Article 16 § 1(c) of the Dublin Regulation. As the Italian authorities had failed to react to that request within two weeks, their responsibility was determined as from 14 April 2010, pursuant to Article   20   §   1(c) of the Dublin Regulation. The judge further did not find it established that Italy fell short of its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees, and rejected the applicant’s argument that he risked treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in Italy. 44.     On 24 August 2010, the applicant filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. On 7 October 2010, he also applied for a provisional measure, which request was rejected the same day by the President of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. No further information about the final outcome of the applicant’s further appeal has been submitted. 45.     The application was introduced to the Court on 6 October 2010. On 7 October 2010, the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicant to Italy until further notice. 46.     On 15 March 2012, a number of factual questions were put to the Government of Italy (Rule 54 § 2 (a)), which concerned the applicant’s situation in Italy before his arrival in the Netherlands. The Italian Government submitted their replies on 14 May 2012 and the applicant’s comments in reply were submitted on 27 June 2012. 4.     Application no. 18764/11 47.     The applicants are a couple and their two children. The parents hail from Eritrea and were born in 1981 (the first applicant) and 1982 (the second applicant). The third applicant was born in Sudan in 2004 and the fourth applicant in Italy in 2008. At the time of the introduction of the application, the applicants were staying in Markelo, the Netherlands, and the second applicant was about five months pregnant. They were represented before the Court by Ms H. Visscher, a lawyer practising in Dordrecht. 48.     The first, second and third applicants entered Italy on 3 October 2004. The next day, the parents’ fingerprints were taken at the Ragusa police headquarters where the family was registered as having illegally entered the territory of the European Union. That same day, the family was transferred to a reception centre for asylum seekers in Isola di Capo Rizzuto, Crotone province. 49.     Having expressed their wish to apply for asylum after their arrival in the reception centre, the first and second applicant did so on 21 October 2004 at the Crotone police headquarters. They stated that they were a married couple and further provided the particulars of their son, the third applicant, who had been born in Sudan after their flight from Eritrea. The parents’ fingerprints were taken again, they were registered as asylum seekers and they were provided with a temporary residence permit as an asylum seeker on which document a passport photograph was affixed. These permits were initially valid until 3 January 2005. The validity of these permits was subsequently prolonged by the Foggia police headquarters. 50.     On 6 November 2004, the family was transferred to another reception centre in Foggia and, in January 2006, to a reception centre in Florence in facilities set up in the context of the project “Emergency housing for nationals of Ethiopia and Eritrea having a status on humanitarian grounds” ( Accoglienza straordinaria di cittadini etiopi ed eritrei in possesso di status umanitari ). 51.     In its decision of 7 March 2006, the special bench of the National Commission for Asylum ( Commissione Nazionale per il diritto d’Asilo, Sezione Speciale Stralcio ) held that the applicants did not qualify for the status of refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the 1951 Refugee Convention”), but it did grant the family a residence permit for humanitarian reasons under the terms of the Legislative Decree ( decreto legislativo ) no. 286/1998. On the basis of this decision, the applicants were provided with a residence permit valid until 5 February 2011. 52.     On 16 July 2007, when the special project ended, the applicants left the Florence reception centre. According to the Italian Government, the first applicant had found a stable job and rented accommodation had been found for the family who had further been granted a housing allowance of € 4,000 as well as an allowance for furniture of € 958. The applicants deny having received these two allowances and submit that the job referred to by the Government was never found. On 11 July 2008 and in Florence, the second applicant gave birth to a daughter. 53.     The applicants applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 27 October 2010. On the same day, the examination and comparison of the fingerprints of the first and second applicant by the Netherlands authorities generated a Eurodac “hit” report, indicating that they had been registered in Crotone on 23 October 2004. The applicants declared that they had been granted an Italian residence permit whose initial one-year validity had subsequently been extended by three years, and that they had thrown the Italian documents away. 54.     On 29 October 2010 the Netherlands authorities asked the Italian authorities to take back the applicants in accordance with Article 16 § 1(c) of the Dublin Regulation. As the Italian authorities failed to react to that request within two weeks, they were considered under Article 20 § 1 of the Dublin Regulation as having implicitly acceded to that request. 55.     In separate decisions taken on 22 November 2010, the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy ( Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel ; the successor to the Minister of Justice) rejected the applicants’ asylum request filed in the Netherlands. The Minister concluded that, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for the processing of the applicants’ asylum request. 56.     The applicants’ appeal against the decisions of 22 November 2010 and their accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on 17 December 2010 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, who did not find it established that Italy fell short of its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees and rejected the applicants’ claim that they risked treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in Italy. 57.     On 24 August 2010, the applicants filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, which was declared inadmissible because of a procedural shortcoming on 29 March 2011. 58.     The application was introduced to the Court on 23 March 2011. On 29 March 2011, the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicants to Italy pending the proceedings before the Court. 59.     On 19 March 2012, a number of factual questions were put to the Government of Italy (Rule 54 § 2 (a)), which concerned the applicants’ situation in Italy before their arrival in the Netherlands. The Italian Government submitted their replies on 15 May 2012 and the applicants’ comments in reply were submitted on 15 June 2012. 60.     According to a medical certificate drawn up on 25 April 2012, the first and second applicant consulted a paediatrician in order to discuss the third applicant’s lag in development and his history of epilepsy since birth and until he turned four. It was decided to carry out further tests. No further information has been submitted about the second applicant’s pregnancy at the time of the introduction of the application. 5.     Application no. 20355/12 61.     The applicant is a national of Eritrea, who states that she was born in 1989. At the time of the introduction of the application, she was staying in Heerlen. She was represented before the Court by Mr B. Lit, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. 62.     The applicant entered Italy on 26 October 2009, landing on the coast of Sicily. On 29 October 2009, her fingerprints were taken at the Modica police headquarters where she was registered as having illegally entered the territory of the European Union. She was registered as Nazret Okbakristos, born in Eritrea on 26 June 1986. 63.     On 5 November 2009, with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant applied for international protection at the Trapani police headquarters, stating inter alia that she was single and that she would explain her reasons for fleeing Eritrea before the Commission. The applicant personally signed her application with the name “Nazret”. On the same day, she was issued with the decision to admit her to a reception centre for asylum seekers in Salinagrande for the duration – limited to 35 days – of the proceedings on the determination of her asylum request. She also signed this document with the name “Nazret”. 64.     By a note dated 11 December 2009, the director of the Salinagrande reception centre informed the Trapani prefecture and other state agencies that on an unspecified date the applicant had left the reception centre without authorisation and without any prior notice. On 17 December 2009, the Trapani prefecture withdrew its decision to admit the applicant to the Salinagrande reception centre. 65.     In its decision of 14 December 2009, and having regard to the note of 11 December 2009 stating that the applicant had left the reception centre, the Trapani Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection found that neither the applicant’s nationality had been established nor elements of persecution or grave danger. Consequently, it rejected the applicant’s request for international protection. 66.     In the meantime, the applicant had travelled to the Netherlands where she had arrived on 25 November 2009 and applied for asylum on 1   December 2009 under a different identity. According to the information given in the standard personal data form, as completed and signed by the applicant herself, her name was M.K. and she was an Eritrean national, born on 10 May 1989. On the same day, the examination and comparison of her fingerprints by the Netherlands authorities generated a Eurodac “hit” report on 1 December 2009, indicating that she had been registered in Pozzallo (Sicily) on 29 October 2009 and in Trapani on 5 November 2009. 67.     When confronted with this result in the course of an interview with the Netherlands immigration authorities, the applicant confirmed the correctness of the Eurodac report. She stated that, after her fingerprints had been taken in Italy, the Italian authorities had thrown her out onto the streets, despite her being pregnant and in need of medical care. 68.     On 4 January 2010 and in the Netherlands, the applicant gave birth to a son named N. 69.     On 10 May 2010 the Netherlands authorities asked the Italian authorities to take back the applicant in accordance with Article 16 § 1(c) of “the Dublin Regulation”. On 11 May 2010, the Italian authorities accepted this request, also in respect of the applicant’s son who had in the meantime been born in the Netherlands. 70.     The applicant’s asylum request was rejected on 10 June 2010 by the Minister of Justice who found that, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for processing the applicant’s asylum request and that this was not altered by the fact that the applicant had been in an advanced stage of pregnancy when she arrived in the Netherlands. 71.     The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 10 June 2010 was accepted on 24 August 2010 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Haarlem, who quashed the impugned decision and ordered the Minister to take a fresh decision. The Minister’s appeal against this ruling was rejected on 27 October 2011 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. 72.     In a fresh decision taken on 17 January 2012, the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy rejected the applicant’s asylum request, holding that Italy was responsible for that request under the terms of the Dublin Regulation. The Minister did not find it established that Italy failed to respect its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees or that the applicant had been a victim of a violation of her rights under Article 3 in Italy or that she would risk treatment prohibited by Article 3 in case she was transferred back to Italy. 73.     The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 2 March 2010 and her accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on 5 April 2012 by the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Haarlem. On the same day, the applicant filed a further appeal against this decision with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. No further information about the outcome of this further appeal, which has no automatic suspensive effect, has been submitted. 74.     The application was introduced to the Court on 5 April 2012. On 10   April 2012, the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Netherlands Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicant to Italy until further notice. The President further decided that the applicant’s identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and that the documents concerning her application should remain confidential (Rule 33 § 1 of the Rules of Court). 75.     Also on 10 April 2012, a number of factual questions were put to the Government of Italy (Rule 54 § 2 (a)), which concerned the applicant’s situation in Italy before her arrival in the Netherlands. The Italian Government submitted their replies on 24 May 2012 and the applicant’s comments in reply were submitted on 13 July 2012. 6.     Application no. 23696/12 76.     The applicant is a national of Somalia, who states that she was born in 1984 and hails from Mogadishu. At the time of the introduction of the application, she was staying in Venlo. She was represented before the Court by Ms A. Spel, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar. 77.     The applicant entered Italy on 10 August 2008, landing on the coast of Lampedusa, where the local police registered her as having illegally entered the territory of the European Union and under the name Naama Mahamed Fedo, a Somali national who was born on 4 April 1983. 78.     On 12 August 2008, with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant applied for international protection at the Agricento police headquarters, stating inter alia that she was married to Abdullahi Abdulle Sambrie, that she had four children who were born in, respectively, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2006 and who were all living in Somalia. She had left Somalia in 2007 because of the civil war and lack of prospects. On 19   August 2008, the applicant was transferred to a reception centre for asylum seekers in Mazara Del Vallo, Trapani province. According to a “Welcome Contract” signed on behalf of the direction of this reception centre and the applicant, her stay would in principle not last beyond 31   December 2008 but could be prolonged in accordance with applicable legal rules. 79.     In its decision of 15 October 2008, the Trapani Territorial Commission for the Recognition of International Protection granted the applicant a residence permit for the purpose of subsidiary protection and rectified her name to Naima Mohamed Fido. The applicant was provided with a residence permit for an alien having been granted subsidiary protection and a travel document. Both the residence permit and the travel document were valid until 15 October 2011 and were signed by the applicant with the name “Naama”. 80.     On an unspecified date about four months after having been admitted there, the applicant left the Mazara Del Vallo reception centre. 81.     The applicant arrived in the Netherlands on 13 January 2009, reported to the Netherland authorities the next day, and filed an asylum request on 6 April 2009 under the name Foos Ali Ahmed, born on 1 July 1984 in Mogadishu. In her first interview with the Netherlands immigration authorities, held on 7 April 2009, she stated that she had left Mogadishu on 12 January 2009 and that she had travelled by air to the Netherlands. She further stated that her first husband had died in 2004, that she had remarried, that her second husband’s name was Duale Moyhadiin Shaeeb and that she had last seen him on 1 December 2008. She had four children who had been born out of her first marriage and who were living with her second husband. She had no children by her second husband. As Italian products had been found on the applicant, she was asked whether she had been in Italy which she denied. It appeared that her fingerprints were of too poor a quality for verification in Eurodac. She explained that she had sweaty hands due to nervousness. 82.     On 19 May 2009, fresh fingerprints were taken from the applicant and an examination and comparison of these fingerprints by the Netherlands authorities generated a Eurodac “hit” report, indicating that she had been registered in Lampedusa on 10 August 2008. 83.     In a further interview held with the immigration authorities on 19   May 2009, the applicant explained that she had left Somalia after she had been held hostage for fifteen days in May or June 2008 by the man who had killed her first husband in 2004. The applicant further admitted that she had been in Italy. She had left Italy because she had been homeless there. She had initially been transferred to an asylum seekers centre. She had then obtained a residence permit and was subsequently told to leave the centre. She had chosen to travel to the Netherlands because she had heard that the Netherlands offered the possibility of allowing family members who stayed behind to come to the Netherlands. 84.     On 23 June 2009 the Netherlands authorities asked the Italian authorities to take responsibility for the applicant in accordance with Article   10 § 1 of the Dublin Regulation. As the Italian authorities failed to react to that request within two months, they were considered as having implicitly acceded to that request. 85.     On 5 January 2010, the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) rejected the applicant’s asylum request filed in the Netherlands. The Deputy Minister held that, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, Italy was responsible for the processing of this asylum request and rejected the applicant’s claim that her transfer to Italy would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the treatment of asylum seekers there. 86.     On 1 May 2010, the applicant gave birth to a son named Zakariya. According to his birth certificate, his father is Du’ale Muhudiin Shu’eyb, the applicant’s second husband. 87.     The applicant’s appeal against this decision to reject her asylum request, filed on 7 January 2010, was accepted on 17 May 2010 by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Haarlem. It quashed the impugned decision and ordered the Minister of Justice to take a fresh decision. 88.     On 11 June 2010, the Minister filed a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. On 24 November 2011, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division accepted the Minister’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 17 May 2010, accepted the applicant’s appeal of 7   January 2010, quashed the decision of 5 January 2010 but ordered that its legal effects were to remain entirely intact. Having noted the Court’s judgment in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (cited above), it noted that the applicant had relied as from the outset on documents containing general information, namely inter alia a report drawn up by ECRE in 2006, a letter written in August 2008 by the Netherlands Refugee Council ( VluchtelingenWerk Nederland ), three Amnesty International reports, a report on a visit by the European Parliament to Lampedusa in February 2009, an Amnesty International report of February 2009, a report of 16   April 2009 by Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, drawn up on 16 April 2009 following his visit to Italy from 13-15 January 2009 and a report of 4 August 2009 by the NGO Statewatch. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division found that these documents had not been examined in the manner as described in the M.S.S. judgment. As it did, however, not find any reason for reaching a different decision in the applicant’s case, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division decided that the legal consequences of the impugned decision of 5 January 2010 were to remain intact. No further appeal lay against this decision. 89.     On 16 February 2012, the applicant filed a fresh asylum request which, pursuant to section 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act ( Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht ), must be based on newly emerged facts or altered circumstances ( nieuw gebleken feiten of veranderde omstandigheden ) wa