CEDH · CASELAW;STATEMENTOFFACTS;ENG — 23 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 } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFBE816EB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   22 July 2009   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29936/09 by Maryam SAIED AHMED against the Netherlands and Greece lodged on 8 June 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Maryam Saied Ahmed, is a Somali national who was born in 1979 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. She is represented before the Court by Mr H. Jeuring, a lawyer practising in Zuidhorn. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant, who belongs to the Habr Gedir subclan of the Hawiye clan family, originates from Mogadishu. She lived in Saudi Arabia between 1997 and October 2006, at which time she was sent back to Somalia by the Saudi authorities. In January 2008, after her husband was murdered, she left Somalia with her daughter, who was born in 2002. In February 2008 the applicant arrived on the Greek island of Lesbos, travelling by boat from Turkey. She was apprehended by the Greek authorities and had her fingerprints taken. She told the authorities her name was Sahra Ali. She was then detained together with her daughter for a period of two weeks. During the first three days of her detention the applicant did not receive any food. After this period the applicant was released and given a letter from the Greek authorities stating that she had to leave the country. The applicant then travelled to Athens where she had to sleep out in the streets. She was apprehended again by Greek police and spent another seven days in detention, after which she was again told to leave the country. During her time in detention the applicant was beaten by police and her attempts to indicate that she wished to seek asylum were ignored. The applicant arrived in the Netherlands in April 2008. Her asylum application in that country was rejected on 2 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 against this decision was rejected by the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague, sitting in Almelo, on 19 May 2009. 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 their transfer to Greece pending these proceedings. On 8 June 2009 the Acting 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 until further notice. COMPLAINTS Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that by returning her to Greece, the Dutch authorities exposed her to a real risk of being returned to Somalia without a proper examination of her Article 3 claim having taken place. She alleges that, in Somalia, she runs a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of 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 she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if she were transferred to Greece, followed by a return to her 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, she runs a real risk of being (indirectly) returned to her country of origin without the Greek authorities having established through a rigorous scrutiny that she 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 she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if returned, even indirectly, to her country of origin?   4a.     What procedure will be applied to the applicant – as an asylum seeker transferred in application of the Dublin Regulation –, upon her 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?