CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 septembre 2015

.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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s96B22F9F { width:184.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; 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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 67743/14 S.S. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   September   2015 as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Josep Casadevall,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 October 2014, Having regard to the factual information submitted by the Netherlands Government and the reply thereto submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr S.S., is an Iranian national, who was born in 1971 and is currently in the Netherlands. He was represented before the Court by Mr R.J.J. Flantua, a lawyer practising in Amersfoort. 2.     The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The following summary of the facts of the case is based on the submissions of the applicant and on replies received from the respondent Government to factual questions put to them pursuant to Rule 49 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 3 March 2012, the applicant entered the Netherlands where, on 12   March 2012, he applied for asylum. He submitted that he had left Iran illegally, that he held no travel or identity documents as, having attracted the negative attention of the Iranian authorities, he could not obtain a passport and travel abroad in a legal manner. He further submitted that he had fled Iran because he had had problems with the security service. On 14   September 2012, the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy ( Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel ) rejected the applicant’s asylum request. 5.     The applicant’s appeal against this decision was accepted on 5 July 2013 by the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague, sitting in Groningen. It quashed the impugned decision and ordered the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice (the successor to the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum Policy) to take a fresh decision. The further appeal filed by the Deputy Minister was accepted on 14 April 2014 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ). It quashed the judgment of 5 July 2013 and rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 14 September 2012. No further appeal lay against this ruling. B.     Developments subsequent to the lodging of the application 6.     On 3 December 2014, a number of factual questions were put to the Government which concerned practical aspects of removals to Iran, including the applicant’s removal. The Government submitted their replies on 8 January 2015 and the applicant’s comments in reply were submitted on 10 February 2015. 7.     The Government submitted that removal of rejected asylum-seekers to Iran is only possible when they hold a valid travel document, and that the Iranian mission only issues travel documents to Iranian nationals who confirm that they want to return to Iran voluntarily. They further stated that no attempts had been made to obtain a travel document for the applicant from the Iranian authorities as, for such an attempt to be successful, the applicant would have to be willing to cooperate. 8.     In his reply, the applicant confirmed that he holds no Iranian travel document. He further indicated that he was not prepared to cooperate in obtaining such a travel document as he does not want to return to Iran where he fears treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. C.     Relevant domestic law and practice 9.     The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in K. v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no.   33403/11, §§ 16-19 and §§ 25-32, 25 September 2012). COMPLAINT 10.     The applicant complained that his removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. THE LAW 11.     The applicant complained that, if removed to Iran, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 of the Convention reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 12.     The Court reiterates at the outset that, according to its established case-law in cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant no longer risks being expelled from that State, it considers the case to have been resolved and strikes it out of its list of cases, whether or not the applicant agrees (see M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, § 32, 8 April 2015). 13.     The Court notes that the Netherlands authorities do not, at least not for as long as he has no valid travel document, intend to proceed effectively with the applicant’s removal to Iran. It further notes that the applicant’s cooperation is a condition sine qua non for obtaining a travel document from the Iranian mission in the Netherlands and that the applicant is not prepared to do so. It lastly notes that, should any practical steps aimed at the applicant’s removal to Iran nevertheless be taken in the future, it is possible for the applicant to challenge this (see, K. v. the Netherlands , cited above, §§ 25 and   28). 14.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court by a majority Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2015. Stephen Phillips   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President