CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION Application no. 70517/11 Ali MAHAMED AHMED against the Netherlands lodged on 8 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ali Mahamed Ahmed, is a citizen of Somalia. He was born in 1987 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mrs J. van Veelen-de Hoop, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 8 June 2009. He claimed that – after a dispute over a plot of land – first his father and several years later his uncle had been murdered by people who were after this plot which was owned by his father and later this uncle. Their assailants had been looking for the applicant as well, as he had inherited the plot from his uncle. On 15 September 2009 the then Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) rejected the application as his account lacked credence. The applicant had failed to establish his account and claims. The applicant appealed this decision. On 29 March 2011 the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Arnhem ( rechtbank ), dismissed his appeal. It upheld the impugned decision. The applicant’s subsequent and final appeal was dismissed on 20 June 2011 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) on summary grounds. On 18 November 2011 the applicant lodged a second asylum application, which he based on the general security situation in Somalia. He claimed that upon return he would encounter problems with the Al Shabaab militia, currently holding power in his province. Upon return, he would be seen as a spy as he had been living in a Western country. On 28 November 2011 the Minister for Immigration and Asylum ( Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel ; the Minister) rejected his application. The applicant had failed to establish a real and personal risk of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Apart from Mogadishu, the general security situation in Somalia did not constitute a situation which in itself entailed a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. As the applicant had been living in an Al Shabaab controlled area before he had left, it could be expected that he would be capable to adapt himself to their ways upon return. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court of The Hague sitting in Den Bosch,on 16 December 2011. It upheld the impugned decision. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed on 2 February 2012 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division on summary grounds. On 24 May 2012 the applicant lodged a third asylum application, which he again based on the general security situation in Somalia. He claimed that in his province, Shabelle Hoose, fighting was going on between Al Shabaab and the Somali authorities supported by the African Union. He further claimed that Al Shabaab was still in power in his province and that he was unable to adapt himself to the rules of Al Shabaab. On 4 June 2012 the Minister rejected his application. The applicant had failed to submit any newly emerged facts and/or circumstances warranting a revision of the initial negative decision. The applicant appealed this decision. The proceedings on this appeal are currently still pending before the Regional Court of The Hague. On 12 June 2012 the applicant requested the European Court of Human Rights to issue an interim measure under the terms of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 19 June 2012 the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the Netherlands Government that the applicant should not be expelled to Somalia pending the proceedings before the Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he, if expelled to Somalia, will be exposed to a real risk of treatment prohibited by this provision. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   In the light of the applicant’s claims, the documents submitted and the Court’s findings in its judgment in Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom (nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011), would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were to be expelled to Somalia?