CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 61060/11 A.F. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   June   2016 as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Johannes Silvis,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 October 2011, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant anonymity to A.F. under Rule   47   §   4 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the factual update submitted by the respondent Government on 23 May 2016 and the information submitted by Mr J. Walls on 2 June 2016 Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The case originated in an application against the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms   H.E.   Visscher, a lawyer working for the Walls Advocaten law firm, on 1   October 2011 on behalf of A.F., a national of Afghanistan born in 1952. Ms Visscher did not provide any written authority to act on behalf of A.F. who has been staying in the Netherlands since 2000. 2.     The Netherlands 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 facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 6 February 2000 A.F., together with his wife and their five children, entered the Netherlands where they applied for asylum, claiming to fear persecution within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the 1951 Refugee Convention”). A.F. stated, inter alia , that he had worked for the Afghan security service KhAD/WAD [1] of the former communist regime in Afghanistan and that his last held rank had been that of major. 5.     In her decision of 5 December 2003 the Minister for Immigration and Asylum ( Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie ) denied A.F. asylum in application of Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention. A.F. challenged this decision in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final – for him negative – decision was given on 10 March 2006 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State. 6.     On 18 June 2009 A.F. filed a second asylum application which was rejected on 19 August 2010 by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ). A.F. also challenged this decision in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final – for him negative – decision was given on 23 July 2012 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. 7.     On 16 March 2014 A.F. filed a third asylum application which was rejected by the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie ). The applicant appealed this decision. The final – for A.F. negative – decision of this third application was given on 14 July 2014 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. 8.     In addition, on 25 March 2014 the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice decided to impose an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) on A.F. who challenged this decision in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final – for A.F. negative – decision was handed down on 20 October 2014 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. 9.     On 4 December 2014, A.F. applied for the entry ban to be lifted, which request was denied on 21 January 2015 by the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice. A.F. did not appeal this decision. B.     Indication of interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court 10.     On 1 October 2011 Ms Visscher sought the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. She asked the Court to indicate to the Netherlands Government to stay the removal of A.F. to Afghanistan. At that moment, A.F. was held in immigration detention ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) whilst his removal was being prepared. 11.     On 4 October 2011 the Acting President of the Third Section granted that request, indicating to the Netherlands Government that A.F. should not be expelled to Afghanistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Ms Visscher was further provided with an application package, consisting of an official application form, an authority for representation and an explanatory notice for prospective applicants, and requested to complete the application without undue delay by returning the duly completed and signed forms. 12.     Having noted that no application form and no authority for representation had been submitted, a reminder was sent on 25 April 2016 to Ms Visscher requesting her to submit these forms by 23 May 2016. This letter also contained the warning that failure to submit these forms within the time-limit fixed for this purpose could lead the Court to declare the case inadmissible. On 2 June 2016, Mr J. Walls of the Walls Advocaten law firm informed the Court that Ms Visscher had left the law firm and that she had transferred her cases to him. Mr Walls further informed the Court that he could not contact A.F. as he was unaware of A.F.’s whereabouts. COMPLAINTS 13.     Ms Visscher filed complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention on behalf of A.F. THE LAW 14.     According to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 15.     The Court considers that the applicant’s failure to keep the law firm which had filed the present application on his behalf informed of his whereabouts indicates that he has lost interest in the proceedings, 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. 16.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President     [1] Between 1978 and 1992 Afghanistan had a communist regime. It had an intelligence and secret police organisation called Khadamat-e Aetela’at-e Dawlati (State Intelligence Agency), better known by its acronym KhAD, which became Wizarat-i Amaniyyat-i Dawlati (Ministry for State Security), known as WAD, in 1986.