CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 16 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   774 16.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision Van Melle and Others v. the Netherlands (application no. 19221/08 )   CASE CONCERNING FIRE IN SCHIPHOL AIRPORT DETENTION CENTRE INADMISSIBLE     Principal facts   The case concerned the refusal to prosecute the Dutch Minister for Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration following the deaths of foreign nationals at Schiphol (Amsterdam) airport detention centre in October 2005.   There are 42 applicants. Five (Muhammed Simsek, Chafik Chnachi, Mustafa Moujahid, Mustafa el Boukhari and Ahmed Issa Al-jeballi) are survivors of the Schiphol fire; two (Nevin Igli and Erol Sahin) claim that they are related to detainees killed in the fire; and, the remaining 35, including the non-governmental organisation Liga voor de Rechten van de Mens (“League for Human Rights”), claim standing before the European Court of Human Rights as protectors of the interests of the victims of the fire, both living and dead.   In the months after the fire, 30 of the applicants requested the prosecution of the then Minister of Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration; their request was ultimately declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ) on 19 October 2007 ( link to the Supreme Court’s decision ).   In the meantime, in September 2006 an extensive and detailed investigation report was made public, which led to the resignation of two Ministers responsible for the detention centre, namely the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The initial application to the Court was lodged by thirty-seven applicants on 16 April 2008. Relying on Article 3 (lack of effective investigation and prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the Dutch authorities’ failure to prosecute the Minister for Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration. Subsequently (in October 2008), they lodged an additional complaint to the effect that the victims of the fire had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.   The five applicants who were actual survivors of the fire joined the application on various dates between October 2008 and February 2009.   The decision was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges ,   And Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court decided that the 35 applicants claiming to protect the interests of the victims of the fire could not claim to be the victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as they had not personally been affected by the events in question. Furthermore, the complaint that the victims of the fire had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, introduced in October 2008 to the Court, that is more than one year after the final decision before the domestic courts, had been introduced out of time [1] . Similarly, the five survivors of the fire, who joined the case in October and November 2008 and February 2009, also introduced their application out of time. It followed that these parts of the application had to be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 (admissibility criteria).   That left only Nevin Igli and Erol Sahin, who, as relatives of detainees killed in the fire, could be considered to have the requisite standing before the Court and had lodged their application within the six-month time-limit. As to their complaint, the Court accepted that the investigation report, made public less than 11 months after the fire, was reliable; it specifically identified the Government institutions it blamed for any inadequacy with regard to the detainees’ safety or care given to survivors afterwards. Indeed, the report resulted in the resignation of the two ministers responsible for the safety and care of the detainees on grounds of political responsibility. The Court took the view that, in so far as they were addressed directly to members of the Government at ministerial level, the procedural requirements of Article 3 had been satisfied in this case. Moreover, there was nothing in the application to suggest that that the Ministers had personally disregarded their duties to the point of criminal responsibility warranting prosecution. Consequently, that part of the application was also rejected as it was manifestly ill-founded.     *** The decision is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The decision is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] For an application to be admissible it has to be lodged within six months following the last judicial decision in the case.