CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s5D0298BB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 20010/13 Mahamuuda HERSI JAMA against the Netherlands lodged on 14 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS   The applicant, Mr Mahamuuda Hersi Jama, is a citizen of Somalia. He was born in 1968 and currently stays in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Tamer, a lawyer practising in Den Haag. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 27 December 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for asylum in the Netherlands. The final decision on this application was taken on 16   September 1998. On 14 February 2000 the applicant lodged a second asylum application. By decision of 17 February 2000 the asylum application was refused. Although possible, no appeal was lodged. By decision of 21 February 2005 an exclusion order was imposed upon the applicant and he was declared an ‘undesired alien’. The applicant instituted administrative proceedings against this decision. On 27 November 2006 he received his final negative decision. By decision of 16 May 2012 the exclusion order was replaced by an entry ban for three years pursuant to Directive 2008/115/EG. On 29 June 2012 the applicant lodged a third unsuccessful asylum application. The final decision on this application was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 6 March 2013.   COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision if he were expelled to Somalia.   QUESTIONs   1.     Is it the Government’s intention to expel the applicant to Mogadishu? If so, for what reasons do the Government believe that the violence in Mogadishu is no longer of such a level of intensity that anyone in the city, except possibly those who are exceptionally well-connected to “powerful actors”, would be at real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 293, 28 June 2011)? Would the applicant personally be at risk of such treatment if expelled to Mogadishu?   2.     In the view of the Government, could the applicant safely reach Somaliland without being at real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3? Is the applicant’s admission to Somaliland guaranteed? If the applicant cannot gain entrance to Somaliland, will he be taken back by the Netherlands?   3. Alternatively, is there an internal flight alternative elsewhere in southern and central Somalia that the applicant could travel to, to which he could gain admittance and where he could settle without being exposed to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, §   294)?