CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 janvier 2014

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sFC4B6575 { height:35.05pt } .s8EB571EB { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s265AD245 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s581CA061 { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#e6e6e6 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s39D95D7A { height:22.15pt } .s2074955B { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s387D3C78 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC7606FBC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .sE3C15D7A { height:21.85pt } .s3B3FE78A { height:19.9pt } .sEC0F263B { height:28.4pt } .s29BA263B { height:22.5pt } .s79E3263B { height:21.5pt } .s98A8263B { height:20.5pt } .s5ABB263B { height:26.6pt } .s280D263B { height:22.8pt } .s7836263B { height:21.8pt } .sEBCD263B { height:28.6pt } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .s3260263B { height:27.4pt } .s282E263B { height:22.9pt } .s15881073 { height:29pt } .sCCE7263B { height:29.1pt } .s4E9C9A20 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:middle } .s46E6D682 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top } .s83BC64C1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 41744/10 M.H. against Cyprus and 16 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   January 2014 as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Vincent A. de Gaetano,   Paul Mahoney,   Robert Spano, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 14 June 2010, Having regard to the fact that on 25 August 2011 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1) and these applications were assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,   Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms   N.   Charalambidou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr P. Clerides, Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus. 3.     The applicants, who are all of Kurdish origin, came to Cyprus from Syria and applied for asylum. Their applications were either dismissed by the Asylum Service or their files closed for failure to attend interviews. Those who appealed to the Reviewing Authority for Refugees had their appeals dismissed but did not bring judicial review proceedings challenging this dismissal. 4.     The applicants were arrested on 11 June 2010 following a demonstration by the Yekiti Party and other Kurds from Syria in Nicosia. A detailed description of the facts concerning the relevant events can be found in the case of M.A. v. Cyprus (no.   41872/10, §§ 29-43, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 5.     The applicants were kept in detention with a view to their deportation to Syria. On 12 June 2010 they submitted a Rule 39 request, together with a number of other persons of Kurdish origin, as they were facing imminent deportation to Syria (see M.A, cited above, §§ 56-58). On 14 June 2010 the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the respondent Government that the applicants should not be deported to Syria until the Court had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim. The parties were requested under Rule   54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation. The applications were granted priority on the same date (Rule 41). On 21 September 2010 the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule 39 in the light of information provided by the parties and lifted Rule 39 in respect of the applicants. 6.     The applicants were all subsequently deported by the authorities on various dates. 7.     On 19 January 2011 the applicants’ complaints under Article   5   §§   1   (f), 2 and 4 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 were communicated to the Government. 8.     On 30 November 2012 the President of the Section decided on her own motion to grant the applicants anonymity under Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court. COMPLAINTS 9.     The applicants complained that their deportation to Syria would entail the risk of them being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In this respect they also complained of the lack of a remedy satisfying the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. Further, the applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f), 2 and 4 of the Convention about their detention by the Cypriot authorities. Lastly, the applicants complained that the authorities were going to deport them collectively in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. THE LAW 10.     Given their similar factual and legal background the Court decides that the applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 2 of the Rules of Court. 11.     The Court observes that following a request by the Registry, the applicants’ representative, by a letter dated 5 December 2012, informed the Court that she had lost contact with the applicants following their deportation to Syria and was unaware of their whereabouts. 12.     By letter dated 13 November 2013, after a request by the Registry for updated information on the matter, she confirmed that this continued to be the case. 13.     Despite this she considered that the Court should proceed with the examination of the applications taking into account the current situation in Syria and the fact that the issues to be examined were the same and/or similar to other pending cases. She suggested, inter alia , that if she could not trace the applicants, in the event of a judgment in their favour, the Court could refrain from awarding them compensation. 14.     The Court notes that the applicants have not contacted Ms   Charalambidou following their deportation to Syria.   Therefore she and, consequently, the Court are not in a position to communicate with the applicants. The Court is conscious of the difficulties faced by Ms   Charalambidou to locate the applicants due to the civil war in Syria. It is of the opinion, however, that the applicants’ failure to keep some form of contact with their Cypriot advocate can be   taken as indicating that they have lost interest in pursuing their application. Although it is true that the applicants did authorise Ms Charalambidou to represent them in the proceedings before the Court, given the impossibility of establishing any communication with the applicants, the Court considers that Ms   Charalambidou cannot now meaningfully pursue the proceedings before it (see the approach to broadly similar circumstances in, inter alia, the cases of Betwata Khoushnauw v. the Netherlands (dec.) nos.   28244/10 and 32224/11, 13 December 2011;   Ramzy v. the Netherlands (striking out), no.   25424/05, §§ 64-65, 20 July 2010; Ali v. Switzerland , 5 August 1998, §   32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ V;   and Sharaf v. Austria , no.   30078/96, Commission decision of 3 December 1997). Any decision on the admissibility or merits would amount to an academic exercise.   15.     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 cases. 16.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. The Court, however, reserves the power to restore the cases to the list in the event of fresh circumstances capable of justifying such a course (see Ali, cited above, § 33). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Françoise Elens-Passos   Ineta Ziemele   Registrar   President Appendix No. Application no. Applicant’s name and date of birth Nationality/Origin 1. 41744/10 M.H. 1982 Stateless Kurd of Syria (Ajanib) 2. 41787/10 K.H. 1989 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 3. 41800/10 M.R. 1986 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 4. 41802/10 A.A. 1983 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 5. 41808/10 A.K. 1983 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 6. 41822/10 F.K. 1987 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 7. 41827/10 H.Ma. 1985 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 8. 41832/10 Am.H. 1983 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 9. 41834/10 Y.I. 1980 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 10. 41835/10 S.K. 1978 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 11. 41837/10 M.Ja. 1985 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 12. 41839/10 Ab.A. 1977 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 13. 41841/10 I.J. 1986 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 14. 41852/10 M.M. 1980 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 15. 41855/10 E.M. 1977 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 16. 41909/10 M.Ka. 1977 Syrian national of Kurdish origin 17. 41922/10 E.H. 1981 Syrian national of Kurdish origin