THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 7245/09 by “ BLONDJE ” against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Elisabet Fura , Corneliu Bîrsan , Boštjan M. Zupančič , Alvina Gyulumyan , Egbert Myjer , Ann Power , judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2009,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, known variously as “Blondje” , “NN cel 07” and “Nn.PI09.m.20081101.1100”, claims that he is a Dutch national who was born on an unspecified date in the Netherlands . He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Hemelaar, a lawyer practising in Leiden .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 30 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed criminal offences. Because he refused to identify himself he was detained pursuant to A rticle 61a of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Wetboek van Strafvordering ) in order for his id entity to be established. On 31 October 2008 he was released and handed over to the A liens P olice ( vreemdelingenpolitie ) , who held him ( ophouding ) for the same purpose, pursuant to Article 50 §§ 2 and 4 of the Aliens Act 2000 ( Vreemdelingenwet 2000 ). After this measure had been extended for forty-eight hours, the applicant was placed in aliens ’ detention with a view to his expulsion ( vreemdelingenbewaring ). In the course of an interview with the Aliens P olice on 3 November 2008 the applicant stated that he had Dutch nationality but that he was not prepared to show his passport or an other identity document – both of which he possess ed – in order to prove his nationality. On 5 November 2008 the applicant was released.

The applicant lodged appeals against his detention, which were dismissed by the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague , sitting in Utrecht, by a decision of 2 December 2008.

On 15 January 2009 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ) declared a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) by the applicant inadmissible, holding that he had failed to fulfil the requirements of Article 6 § 5 of the General Administrative Law Act ( Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht ) by not including his name in the notice of appeal.

B. Events following the introduction of the application

Since n either the application form , the authority to act (which was signed “X”) nor the supporting documents contain ed a ny mention of the applicant ’ s name, the applicant ’ s representative was requested on 9 March 2009 to provide the Court with a copy of a valid identity document for his client, as required by domestic law.

In his reply of 30 March 2009 , the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that no valid identity document was available, pointing out that the case concerned aliens ’ detention and that Dutch law did not require the submission of an identity document in such cases. Moreover, in view of the applicant ’ s youth , there had likewise been no need or obligation for him to possess a document allowing him to cross international borders.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that his continued detention by the A liens P olice had breached his rights under Article 5 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing. Lastly, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been discriminated against.

THE LAW

The applicant raised complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 14 of the Convention in relation to the decisions to detain him under the Aliens Act 2000.

The Court notes , however , that the applicant ’ s identity was not disclosed . None of the forms or documents submitted contained a ny mention of his name; he was referred to only as “Blondje ”, “ NN cel 07 ” or “ Nn.PI09.m.20081101.1100” . In addition , the authority to act that was submitted was signed “X”.

Hence, s ince the case file did not contain any information enabling the Court to identify the applicant, the application is to be regarded as anonymous (see X v. Ireland , no. 361/58, Commission decision of 1 September 1958 , unreported ). Consequently, it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 2 ( a) of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.