CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 72606/13 A.K. and B.N. against the Netherlands lodged on 21 November 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicants, Mr A.K. and Mrs B.N., are a married couple. They are both Iranian nationals and were born in 1970 and 1974, respectively. At the time of the introduction of the application, they were staying in the Netherlands. The President granted the applicants’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). They are represented before the Court by Mr J.C. van Zundert, a lawyer practising in Delft. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 1 March 2013 the applicants and their daughter, born in 1997, entered the Netherlands where they applied for asylum, stating that they feared persecution in Iran for having converted to Christianity. On the same day, their fingerprints were taken for examination and comparison. Following this examination in the European Union Visa Information System (VIS), it was found that the applicants had been granted a residence permit in Italy in December 2012. 4.     On 1 May 2013 the Netherlands authorities asked the Italian authorities to take responsibility for the applicants. This requested was accepted by the Italian authorities on 28 May 2013 under the terms of Article 9 § 4 of Council Regulation (EC) no. 343/2003 (“the Dublin Regulation”). 5.     On 12 June 2013, the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie) rejected the applicants’ asylum requests finding that Italy was responsible for these requests. 6.     On 23 July 2013, the applicants’ daughter received medical treatment for having cut her wrists. During subsequent medical visits, the applicants’ daughter indicated that she had big problems with her parents who, in her opinion, unduly restricted her personal freedom. 7.     The applicants’ appeal against the decision of 12 June 2013 was dismissed on 2 September 2013 by the provisional-measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague. The applicants’ further appeal was rejected on 18 October 2013 by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State. No further appeal lay against this ruling. 8.     The transfer to Italy of the applicants and their daughter was scheduled for 22 October 2013. However, shortly before 18 October 2013, the applicants’ daughter left her parents’ place of residence for an unknown destination. On the basis of this development, the scheduled removal was postponed in order to allow the applicants to find their daughter. 9.     On 11 November 2013, after their transfer to Italy had been scheduled for 18 November 2013, the applicants were placed in aliens’ detention for removal purposes ( vreemdelingenbewaring ). As their daughter remained missing, the applicants’ removal was postponed once more, namely until 26 November 2013. COMPLAINT 10.     The applicants complain that their removal from the Netherlands without their minor daughter, who has gone missing in the Netherlands shortly before 18 October 2013, is contrary to their right to respect for family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS     1.     Does the applicants’ expulsion from the Netherlands without their minor daughter, who has gone missing in the Netherlands shortly before 18 October 2013, constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, is that interference justified under the terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?