CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   18 11.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SALAH SHEEKH v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands (application no. 1948/04).   The Court held unanimously that the applicant’s expulsion to Somalia would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that there was no need to examine the issue of just satisfaction, no claim having been made by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Abdirizaq Salah Sheekh, is a Somali national who submitted that he was born in 1986 and is currently living in Amsterdam.   On 12 May 2003 the applicant left Somalia and arrived at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport on a false passport and asked for asylum. In support of his application he gave the following account.   He originally hailed from Mogadishu and belonged to the minority Ashraf population group. In 1991, due to the civil war, his family was forced to leave behind their belongings in Mogadishu and flee to the village of Tuulo Nuh, 25 km from Mogadishu, where they lived in primitive conditions.   After their flight from Mogadishu, the family was robbed of their remaining possessions. Tuulo Nuh was controlled by the Abgal clan of the Hawiye clan-family. That clan's armed militia knew that the applicant and his family had no means of protection because they belonged to a minority, and for that reason the family was persecuted. Three other Ashraf families were living in Tuulo Nuh; they were treated in the same manner.   He claimed that his father was killed by members of the Abgal militia and that they shot and killed his brother and then plundered his grocery store. He also stated that he and his brothers were beaten up several times in their home and that on two separate occasions they took the applicant's sister away and raped her.   His request was refused on 25 June 2003. The Minister for Immigration and Integration considered that, among other things, he had made unreliable statements as to his date of birth which affected the credibility of his account.   The Minister also found that the reasons advanced by the applicant for his flight were insufficient to qualify him as a refugee. The situation in Somalia for asylum seekers, whether or not they belonged to the Ashraf population group, was not such that the mere fact that a person came from that country was sufficient for refugee recognition. The applicant's account contained insufficient indications that he had made himself known as an opponent to the (local) rulers. He had never been a member or sympathiser of a political party or movement. He had never been arrested or detained.   Furthermore, the Minister held that the problems experienced by the applicant had not come about as the result of systematic, major acts of discrimination but were rather a consequence of the general unstable situation in which criminal gangs frequently, but arbitrarily, intimidated and threatened people.   The Minister concluded that it had not appeared that there existed a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 upon his return to Somalia.   According to the Minister, returning the applicant to Somalia, given the general situation there, did not amount to undue harshness because, in order to avoid any future problems, he could settle in one of Somalia's relatively safe areas. There was no reason to conclude that a general humanitarian emergency situation pertained in those areas. Whether or not the applicant had family or clan ties in the relatively safe areas, or whether or not he had ever been there before, played no role in that context.   The applicant appealed against the rejection of his request for asylum on 26 June 2003. He argued, inter alia, that a controversial method had been used to determine whether or not he was a minor, that the Minister had ignored the fact that his horrific experiences had their roots in a form of ethnic exclusion and exploitation, and that no internal flight alternative existed in Somalia. The same day he also filed an objection against the refusal to grant him a particular residence permit for stateless persons.   The Regional Court of The Hague rejected the applicant's appeal against the rejection of his request for asylum. The Regional Court attached relevance to the fact that the applicant could distance himself from the situation pertaining in his immediate living environment by moving to the “relatively safe areas” of Somalia.   Having been informed that he was to be issued with a European Union travel document and deported to the “relatively safe areas” of Somalia on 16 January 2004, the applicant lodged an objection on the basis of section 72 § 3 of the Aliens Act 2000 with the Minister on 8 January. He further requested the Regional Court to issue a provisional measure to the effect that he would not be deported pending the appeal. The applicant argued that there were too many incongruities surrounding a deportation as planned: not only was the legal basis of the EU travel document unclear, it was also not known whether the authorities in (the “relatively safe” areas of) Puntland and the Somali province of Mudug allowed persons travelling on such documents entry to their territory. In addition, the applicant, as a member of a minority unable to obtain protection from one of the ruling clans, would be forced to live in a camp for internally displaced persons in the “relatively safe areas”, where the conditions were so appalling that they had been described as a clear violation of human rights by the UN Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia.   The provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Amsterdam, rejected the applicant's request for a provisional measure on 20 January 2004. It was held that the deportation with EU travel documents might only be unlawful if there were indications that entry to a territory would be denied to persons travelling with those documents. No such indications existed. Moreover, the airline company transporting rejected asylum seekers from Nairobi to Somalia had undertaken to return these persons should they be denied entry to Somalia.   On 15 January 2004, the applicant introduced an application to the European Court of Human Rights. That same day, the President of the Chamber, at the applicant’s request, indicated to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, not to expel the applicant while the case was pending before the Court. Thereupon, the Netherlands authorities cancelled the applicant's expulsion. The applicant was also released from aliens’ detention.   The applicant was granted a residence permit on the basis of a temporary “categorial protection policy” on 10 March 2006.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 January 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that his expulsion would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, having regard to his personal situation of belonging to a minority in the light of the general human rights situation in Somalia. He also complained that he did not have an effective remedy in that the Netherlands authorities refused to suspend his expulsion pending a decision on his objection against the manner of his expulsion. He relied on Article 3 in the event of his expulsion to Somalia and Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court observed that it was not the Government's intention to expel the applicant to any area in Somalia other than those that they considered “relatively safe”. The Court noted that although those territories – situated in the north – were generally more stable and peaceful than south and central Somalia, there was a marked difference between the position of, on the one hand, individuals who originate from those areas and have clan and/or family links there and, on the other hand, individuals who hail from elsewhere in Somalia and do not have such links.   As far as the second group was concerned, the Court considered that it was most unlikely that the applicant, who was a member of the Ashraf minority hailing from the south of Somalia, would be able to obtain protection from a clan in the “relatively safe” areas. It noted that the three most vulnerable groups in Somalia were said to be internally displaced persons, minorities and returnees from exile. If expelled to the “relatively safe” areas, the applicant would fall into all three categories.   The Court observed that Somaliland and Puntland authorities have informed the respondent Government of their opposition to the forced deportations of, in the case of Somaliland, non-Somalilanders and, in the case of Puntland, “refugees regardless of which part of Somalia they originally came from without seeking either the acceptance or prior approval” of the Puntland administration. In addition, both the Somaliland and Puntland authorities have also indicated that they do not accept the EU travel document.   The Netherlands Government insisted that expulsions are nevertheless possible to those areas and pointed out that, in the event of an expellee being denied entry, he or she would be allowed to return to the Netherlands. They maintained that Somalis are free to enter and leave the country as the State borders are hardly subject to controls. The Court accepted that the Government might well succeed in removing the applicant to either Somaliland or Puntland. However, this by no means constituted a guarantee that the applicant, once there, would be allowed or enabled to stay in the territory, and with no monitoring of deported rejected asylum seekers taking place, the Government would have no way of verifying whether or not the applicant would have succeeded in gaining admittance. In view of the position taken by the Puntland and particularly the Somaliland authorities, it seemed to the Court rather unlikely that the applicant would be allowed to settle there.   Consequently, the Court found that there was a real chance of his being removed, or of his having no alternative but to go to areas of the country which both the Government and UNHCR consider unsafe.   The Court considered that the treatment to which the applicant claimed he had been subjected prior to his leaving Somalia could be classified as inhuman within the meaning of Article 3 and that vulnerability to those kinds of human rights abuses of members of minorities like the Ashraf has been well-documented.   The Court reiterated its view that the existence of the obligation not to expel is not dependent on whether the source of the risk of the treatment stems from factors which involve the responsibility, direct or indirect, of the authorities of the receiving country. Article 3 may thus also apply in situations where the danger emanates from persons or groups of persons who are not public officials. What is relevant in that context is whether the applicant was able to obtain protection against and seek address for the acts perpetrated against him. The Court considered that this was not the case. Given the fact that there had been no significant improvement of the situation in Somalia, there was no indication that the applicant would find himself in a significantly different situation from the one he fled.   The Court took issue with the national authorities' assessment that the treatment to which the applicant fell victim was meted out arbitrarily. It appeared from the applicant's account that he and his family were targeted because they belonged to a minority and for that reason it was known that they had no means of protection. The Court considered, on the basis of the applicant's account and the information about the situation in the “relatively unsafe” areas of Somalia in so far as members of the Ashraf minority were concerned, that his being exposed to treatment in breach of Article 3 upon his return was foreseeable rather than a mere possibility.   The Court concluded that the expulsion of the applicant to Somalia as envisaged by the respondent Government would be in violation of Article 3.   Article 13 The Court observed that the applicant applied to the Regional Court of The Hague requesting the expulsion be stayed pending a decision on his objection. The judge, however, decided that the expulsion would not be in breach of Article 3.   Bearing in mind that the word “remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 did not mean a remedy bound to succeed, and that the compatibility of the scheduled removal with Article 3 was examined, the Court considered that the applicant was provided with an effective remedy as regards the manner in which his expulsion was to be carried out. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there has been no violation of Article 13.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.     [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.