CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 juillet 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   416 26.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT N. v. FINLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of N. v. Finland (application no. 38885/02).   The Court held: by six votes to one, that the applicant’s expulsion to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at the present time would amount to a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court also held, unanimously, that the finding that the applicant’s expulsion to the DRC would amount to a violation of Article 3 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage . (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr N., comes from the DRC (formerly Zaire).   He arrived in Finland on 20   July 1998, requesting political asylum on the strength of having been a member of the special division ( Division Spéciale Présidentielle, the DSP) responsible for protecting former President Mobutu, his family and property. In particular, he was an infiltrator and informant in the DSP, reporting directly to very senior-ranking officers close to the former President. The applicant claimed his life was in danger because the regime under Laurent-Désiré Kabila, which replaced that of President Mobutu in May 1997, had started killing those who had worked under Mobuto. In addition he was a member of the Ngbandi tribe to which Mobuto also belonged.   In 1999 the applicant met another asylum seeker, Ms E., and they lived together until Ms E. was deported on 22   February 2000.   The DRC regime changed again in 2001, following which the general situation in the country improved.   On 6 March 2001 the Directorate of Immigration ordered the applicant’s deportation to the DRC, finding his submissions inconsistent, that he had failed to prove his identity and that, if deported, he would not face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr N. appealed unsuccessfully.   Some time after her prohibition on re-entry had expired, Ms E. returned to Finland and had a son with the applicant.   On 5 November 2002 the Government of Finland decided not to expel the applicant to the DRC until the European Court of Human Rights had examined his application, following a request from the Court under Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court.   On 4   March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court refused a further appeal from the applicant noting that: his identity and ethnic origin remained unclear; he had not shown in a credible manner that he had remained in the DRC until 17 May 1997; and, that the applicant’s family life as established in Finland was not such as to attract protection under Article 8 of the Convention, given that neither parent had a valid residence permit or any other connection with Finland.   On 17 June 2003 Helsinki Administrative Court refused E.’s appeal against the refusal of asylum or a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. On 16 July 2003 the Directorate of Immigration refused E. and her new-born child a residence permit and ordered their expulsion to Russia, E’s country of origin, with her two other children. E. remains in Finland pending the results of her appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged before the European Court of Human Rights on 31 October 2002. The President of the Chamber dealing with the case and the Chamber decided, on 5 and 12 November 2002 respectively, to apply Rule 39 measures, indicating to the Finish Government that the applicant should not be expelled pending the Court’s decision. On 23 September 2003 the application was declared admissible.   From 18-19 March 2004 Court delegates questioned the applicant and witnesses on a fact-finding mission in Helsinki.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he would face inhuman treatment if deported to the DRC, given his background and, in particular, his close connections with former President Mobutu. He also maintained that his deportation would violate his right to respect for his private and family life, as his family is living in Finland. He relied on Article 3 and 8 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court observed that, as the applicant had left the DRC eight years ago, it could not be excluded that the current DRC authorities’ interest in detaining and possibly ill-treating him due to his past DSP activities might have diminished with the passage of time. The regime had also changed in 2001. It was of some importance, though not decisive, that the applicant had never been in direct contact with President Mobutu and did not hold a senior military rank when forced to leave the country. The Court noted however that factors other than rank – such as the soldier’s ethnicity or connections to influential people – might also be of importance when considering the risk he or she might be facing if returned to the DRC. While a number of Mobutu supporters appeared to have been returning voluntarily to the DRC in recent years, the Court did not place any decisive weight on that fact when assessing the risk facing the applicant if he were compelled to return.   The Court considered that decisive regard must be had to the applicant’s specific activities as an infiltrator and informant in President Mobutu’s special protection force, reporting directly to very senior-ranking officers close to the former President. On account of those activities, the Court found that he would still run a substantial risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, if now expelled to the DRC. The Court added that the risk of ill-treatment to which the applicant would be exposed might not necessarily emanate from the current authorities but from relatives of dissidents who might seek revenge for the applicant’s past activities in the service of President Mobutu.   The overall evidence before the Court supported the applicant’s account of his having worked in the DSP, having formed part of President Mobutu’s inner circle and having taken part in various events during which dissidents seen as a threat to the President were singled out for harassment, detention and possibly execution. There was therefore reason to believe that the applicant’s situation could   be worse than that of most other former Mobutu supporters, and that the authorities would not necessarily be able or willing to protect him.   Neither could it be excluded that the publicity surrounding the applicant’s asylum claim and appeals in Finland might engender feelings of revenge in relatives of dissidents possibly affected by the applicant’s actions in the service of President Mobutu.   In those circumstances, and having assessed all the material before it, the Court concluded that sufficient evidence had been adduced to establish substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, if expelled to the DRC at the present time. Accordingly, the enforcement of the order issued to that effect would violate Article 3 for as long as the risk persisted.   Article 8 In view of its conclusion that the applicant’s expulsion to the DRC would violate Article 3, the Court found that no separate issue arose under Article 8.     Judge Maruste expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.