CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 janvier 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   042 19.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Hussun and Others v. Italy (applications nos. 10171/05, 10601/05, 11593/05 and 17165/05)     APPLICATIONS BY A GROUP OF MIGRANTS FROM LIBYA WHO LANDED IN LAMPEDUSA STRUCK OUT OF THE LIST   Struck out of the list (all but one applicant) No violation of Article 34 (right of individual application) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The 84 applicants landed on the island of Lampedusa (Italy) from Libya in March 2005, in a group of about 1200 people. Most of the applicants appeared to be Palestinians, but there were also some Iraqi, Algerian, Jordanian and Moroccan nationals and one Tunisian. Like thousands of migrants every year, they had sailed to Europe on board unsafe vessels (most with no identity documents) in search of a better economic situation and/or political asylum. On arrival they were placed in temporary holding centres. At the end of March 2005 they instructed a lawyer to represent them. A little later dozens of illegal immigrants, including many of the applicants, escaped from the holding centre.   The applicants fell into three groups, according to their subsequent fate. The whereabouts of 57 of them was unknown. The Court had only their application forms and powers of attorney; some of these were incomplete and there was generally no indication of when and where the powers of attorney had been signed. A second group of 14 applicants had been expelled early in April 2005, by decision of the Prefect of Crotone, after a district court had heard each of them in the presence of a lawyer and an interpreter and endorsed the expulsions. The remaining 13 applicants had been released when the time-limit for keeping them in the holding centre expired, and their representatives had lost contact with all but one of them, Mr. Kamel Midawi.   As the Government had questioned the authenticity of the powers of attorney produced by some of the applicants’ representatives, the Court ordered an examination of the handwriting in the powers of attorney of the 57 applicants whose whereabouts was unknown. It revealed that in at least 34 cases the powers of attorney had been written and signed by the same person. Counsel subsequently withdrew the applications lodged on behalf of 22 applicants.   The representatives had lost all contact with the applicants and were unable to trace them, with the exception of Mr Kamel Midawi (who lived in Italy).     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants relied on some or all of the following Articles: Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 34 (right of individual application), as well as on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens). They complained of the risk to which expulsion to Libya exposed them, the lack of an effective remedy against the expulsion decisions, their collective expulsion as aliens, and also of having been obstructed in their right to apply to the Court.   The applications had been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 March, 23 March, 1 April and 12 May 2005. In a decision on admissibility pronounced on 11 May 2006, the Court had adjourned examination of the applications concerning the 57 applicants whose whereabouts were unknown and declared admissible, under Articles 2, 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, those concerning the 14 applicants who had been expelled and, under Article 34 only, those of the 13 applicants who had been released.     Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges ,   and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Alleged violation of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (in respect only of the 57 applicants whose whereabouts were unknown and the 14 who had been expelled)   As regards the group of 57 applicants whose whereabouts were unknown, at least some of whom seemed to have absconded towards the end of March 2005, the Court noted that according to the graphologist’s report the powers of attorney of a large number of them had been written and signed by one and the same person. This appeared to belie the statement that a lawyer had collected each of the signatures from a “real, physically existing person” (22 of the applications concerned had actually been withdrawn following the graphologist’s findings).   As to the group of 14 applicants expelled to Libya, the Court noted that the expulsion order against each one of them had been individually endorsed by a district court following a hearing held in the presence of a lawyer and an interpreter. The Court further noted that the validity of the powers of attorney concerning some of these applicants too was open to doubt.   In any event, the representatives had lost contact with all of the applicants concerned, so the Court was unable to learn any more about the particular situation of each one (it did not know, for example, exactly where in Libya the group concerned had been expelled to, or what kind of reception the Libyan authorities had given them).   In view of the above, the Court held that further examination of the applications in this respect was not justified and they should be struck out of the list.   Alleged violation of Article 34 (this part of the applications concerned all three groups of applicants: the 57 whose whereabouts were unknown, the 14 who had been expelled and the 13 who had been released)   With the exception of Mr Kamel Midawi’s application, the Court found, for the same reasons as above, that further examination of the applications in this respect was not justified and they should be struck out of the list.   In the case of Mr Kamel Midawi, while there was no doubt as to the authenticity of his power of attorney and he had remained in contact with his counsel, the Court noted that there was no sign of any conduct on the part of the domestic authorities that might have prevented the Mr Midawi from lodging an application with the Court, or rendered his application ineffective. There had therefore been no violation of Article 34.     *** The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.