CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2013

.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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. 32894/11 Jama ABDULLAHI ISMAEL against the Netherlands lodged on 18 May 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jama Abdullahi Ismael, is a citizen of Somalia. He was born in 1984 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr Coenen, a lawyer practising in Utrecht. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 October 2009 the applicant applied unsuccessfully for asylum in the Netherlands. On 22 November 2010 he received his final negative decision. On 3 October 2011 the applicant applied for a second time unsuccessfully for asylum in the Netherlands. 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 21 February 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 his hometown of Goobweyn without being at real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3? Moreover, can it be said that he has recent experience of living in Somalia and can therefore avoid coming to the attention of al-Shabaab (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, § 295)?   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)?