CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF12AA88 { width:299.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAD9CA6D3 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D638DB { width:35.27pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s69E2E442 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   29 July 2009   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36092/09 by Mahad ABSHIR SAMATAR against the Netherlands lodged on 7 July 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mahad Abshir Samatar is a Somali national who was born in 1977 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Mr J.G. Wiebes, a lawyer practising in Lelystad. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant, who belongs to the Murusade sub-clan of the Hawiye clan family and hails from Mogadishu, fled his country in January 2007. He had been detained in Somalia for 16 days by the Al Shabab group. The applicant could not turn to the Government or other clans for protection. The applicant arrived on the Greek island of Samos from Turkey in March 2007. That same day he was sent back to Turkey only to be sent back to Samos again four days later. His fingerprints were taken and he was detained and ill-treated during 5 months in Samos and then transported to Athens by boat. Upon his release from detention the applicant was presented with a letter stating that he was to leave Greece within 30 days. He lived on the streets in Athens when he was not renting a space in a house from an Afghan contact. He was sometimes provided with food by a church. He was apprehended by police three times in Athens and detained for 15, 8 and 6 days respectively, as the 30 days he had to leave Greece had lapsed each time he was apprehended. The applicant received a new summons to leave within 30 days after each detention. After the applicant and other Somali asylum seekers had been dispersed and beaten by police when they attempted to stage a protest in Athens against the treatment they had been receiving, the applicant left Greece on 12 July 2008 and arrived in the Netherlands on the same day. His asylum application in the latter country was rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) on 24 March 2009, since it was considered that, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“the Dublin Regulation”), Greece was responsible for examining the asylum request. The applicant’s appeal to the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague, sitting in Almelo was rejected on 11 June 2009. It held, in relevant part, that the applicant had insufficiently established that he would run a real risk of being expelled by the Greek authorities to Somalia without due process, since the evidence adduced by him did not suffice to refute the firmly established principle of legitimate expectations – i.e. that Greece would abide by their obligations of non-refoulement. The Regional Court having reached its decision without a hearing, the applicant lodged an objection ( verzet ) against it, which proceedings are currently still pending. However, it was not open to the applicant to apply for an injunction to stay his transfer to Greece pending these proceedings. On 8 July 2009 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government of the Netherlands that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to remove the applicant from their territory pending the proceedings before the Court. COMPLAINTS Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, as well as Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, the applicant complains that by refusing to examine the merits of his asylum application and by returning him to Greece, the Dutch authorities exposed him to a real risk of being returned to Somalia without a proper examination of his Article 3 claim having taken place. He alleges that, in Somalia, he runs a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 and claims that his indirect removal to an intermediary country, whose authorities may decide to return him to Somalia, does not affect the responsibility of the Netherlands to ensure that he is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES A.     To the Government of the Netherlands   1.     With regard to the information provided previously that a Dutch Government official will be present during the transfer of an asylum seeker to Greece pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18   February 2003 (“the Dublin Regulation”), the Government are requested to specify what exactly this presence entails. Does the official accompany the asylum seeker to the office of the police department at Athens airport? Does the official stay with the asylum seeker until an asylum application is lodged?   2.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were transferred to Greece, followed by a return to his country of origin?   3.     Having regard to   i) the reports referred to by the applicant, relating to the way in which asylum applications are processed in Greece and asylum seekers treated, and       ii) the applicant’s claim that, if transferred to Greece, he runs a real risk of being (indirectly) returned to his country of origin without the Greek authorities having established through a rigorous scrutiny that he will not run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 in that country,   is it compatible with Article 3 and/or Article 13 of the Convention for the Netherlands authorities to:   a)     apply the Dublin Regulation without sufficiently examining the claim, supported by the submitted reports, that Greece cannot be considered a safe third country and/or without ascertaining that Greece will actually submit the applicant’s asylum application to a rigorous scrutiny;   b)     apply the Dublin Regulation without examining the merits of the applicant’s claims?   In view of the requirement to secure effective protection of Convention rights (see e.g. Soering v. the United Kingdom , 7 July 1989, Series A no.   161, § 87, and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, § 102), is it relevant to take into account in determining question 3a) that UNHCR has recently suspended its participation in the examination of more than 30,000 pending asylum applications in Greece due to reservations about new regulations?   B.     To the Government of Greece   1. With regard to the information provided previously by the Government of Greece that an asylum seeker transferred to Greece pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No.   343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (“the Dublin Regulation”) is able to apply for asylum at the office of the police department at Athens airport, and also having regard to the information contained in the various reports referred to by the applicant, the Government are requested to indicate   a)     whether, subsequent to the lodging of such an asylum application, the asylum seeker concerned is subjected to an obligation to report to the authorities and whether he or she has an effective means of complying with this obligation; and   b)     whether the processing of the asylum application is dependent on any other factors, such as the asylum seeker having an address.   2a.     With regard to the information provided previously by the Government of Greece that an asylum seeker has a right to housing, the Government are requested to elaborate on the kind of accommodation that will be made available to asylum seekers being returned to Greece pursuant to the Dublin Regulation and whether, in light of the current large influx of asylum seekers, the availability of accommodation can be guaranteed.   2b.     In addition, are asylum seekers provided with (the means to procure) essentials such as food and medical care during the time the asylum application has not yet been finally decided? If not, in what way are asylum seekers meant to obtain such essentials?   3.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if returned, even indirectly, to his country of origin?   4a.     What procedure will be applied to the applicant – as an asylum seeker transferred in application of the Dublin Regulation –, upon his return to Greece?   4b.     Can this procedure be considered as constituting an effective remedy before a national authority as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular:   i.     Will the applicant have access to the services of an interpreter at all stages of the procedure? ii.     Will the applicant have access to (State-funded) legal assistance, if required? iii.     If the asylum application is rejected, what possibilities of appeal exist?