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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44735/10 M.Z. against Cyprus 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 application lodged on 6 August 2010, Having regard to the fact that on 25 August 2011 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1) and the application was 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 applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr M.Z. is a Syrian national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1980. 2.     He was 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 applicant left Syria in September 2004 and entered Cyprus unlawfully in February 2005 after travelling from Turkey. He filed an application for asylum on 6 April 2005. This was dismissed by the Asylum Service on 13   October 2009. He then filed an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees on 26 October 2009 which was dismissed on 15   June 2010. The applicant was arrested on 4 July 2010. Deportation and detention orders were issued against him the next day, pursuant to section   14 (6) of the Aliens and Immigration Law, on the ground that he was a “prohibited immigrant” within the meaning of that law. 4.     On 16   August 2010 the applicant submitted a Rule 39 request which was refused by the President of the Section the next day. 5.     On 14 December 2010 the applicant was deported to Syria. 6.     On 19 January 2011 the applicant’s complaints under Articles   5   §§   1   (f), 2 and 4 of the Convention were communicated to the Government. 7.     On 30 November 2012 the President of the Section decided on her own motion to grant the applicant anonymity under Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court. COMPLAINTS 8.     The applicant complained that his deportation to Syria would entail the risk of him being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In this respect he also complained of the lack of a remedy satisfying the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. Further, the applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f), 2 and 4 of the Convention about his detention by the Cypriot authorities. THE LAW 9.     The Court observes that following a request by the Registry, the applicant’s representative, by a letter dated 5 December 2012, informed the Court that she had lost contact with the applicant following his deportation to Syria and was unaware of his whereabouts. 10.     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. 11.     Despite this she considered that the Court should proceed with the examination of the application taking into account the current situation in Syria and the fact that the issues to examined were the same and/or similar to other pending cases. She suggested, inter alia , that if she could not trace the applicant, in the event of a judgment in his favour, the Court could refrain from awarding him compensation. 12.     The Court notes that the applicant has not contacted Ms   Charalambidou following his deportation to Syria. Therefore, she and, consequently, the Court are not in a position to communicate with him. The Court is conscious of the difficulties faced by Ms   Charalambidou to locate the applicant due to the civil war in Syria. It is of the opinion, however, that the applicant’s failure to keep some form of contact with his Cypriot advocate can be taken as indicating that he has lost interest in pursuing his application. Although it is true that the applicant did authorise Ms   Charalambidou to represent him in the proceedings before the Court, given the impossibility of establishing any communication with the applicant, 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. 13.     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. 14.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. The Court, however, reserves the power to restore the case 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 strike the application out of its list of cases. Françoise Elens-Passos   Ineta Ziemele   Registrar   President