Search
document

Document text Analytics

V.O.O. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 17109/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1523

Document date: March 31, 1993

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

V.O.O. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 17109/90 • ECHR ID: 001-1523

Document date: March 31, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 17109/90

by V.O.O.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

J.-C. GEUS

M. NOWICKI

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 27 July 1990 by

V.O.O. against the Netherlands and registered on 31 August 1990 under

file No. 17109/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1957, is a Kenyan national presently

residing at Rosmalen, the Netherlands. At the time of the introduction

of the application, he was detained at the reception centre for asylum

seekers at Schiphol-Oost. Before the Commission, he is represented by

Mr. Th. Spijkerboer, a lawyer practising in Zaandam.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

The applicant was a member of the "Kenya Revolutionary Movement"

(KMR), an illegal political movement, which sent him in the course of

1988 to Libya to attend ideology courses. On 26 February 1989 he fled

Libya to Sweden as he had heard that all the KMR members had been

arrested in Kenya. However, upon arrival at Schiphol airport the same

day, he was prevented from flying to Sweden because it was expected

that the Swedish authorities would send him back to the Netherlands as

he only possessed an identity certificate.

On 27 February 1989 the applicant applied for asylum and for a

residence permit. At the same time, he was detained at the reception

centre for asylum seekers at Schiphol-Oost on the basis of Article 7a

of the Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet). Detention in such a centre

pursuant to this provision is considered to take place on Netherlands

territory, although Article 7a expressly stipulates that it does not

imply entry to the Netherlands. On 28 February 1989 both requests were

rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatsecretaris van

Justitie) on the ground that the applicant's participation in the KMR

and his fear for arrest were questionable. On 14 March 1989 the

applicant filed a request for review (herzieningsverzoek) to which

suspensive effect was granted.

Meanwhile, on 10 March 1989, the applicant filed a request for

release and for damages with the Haarlem Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) which rejected the request on 28 March 1989.

On 13 April 1989 the applicant was released and allowed to enter

the Netherlands.

By decision of 30 January 1990, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal

(Gerechtshof) declared the applicant's request for release inadmissible

as he was no longer detained and also declared inadmissible his request

for damages as the legal provision on which the request was based did

not apply to the present case and insofar as it could be considered to

have another basis, the request for damages had not been submitted in

the prescribed form. No plea of nullity was filed with the Supreme

Court (Hoge Raad) as such appeals are declared inadmissible when the

detention has ceased.

By letter of 21 March 1991, the Deputy Minister of Justice

informed the applicant that he had acceded to his request for review

and that he was granted the status of refugee.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that he was unlawfully detained at the

detention centre for asylum seekers at Schiphol-Oost. He invokes

Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains that he was treated differently from

other categories of asylum seekers and that therefore his detention was

contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention.

3. The applicant finally complains that his detention constituted

a restriction applied for other purposes than those prescribed by

Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention. He relies on Article 18 taken

together with Article 5 of the Convention.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention, the

Commission notes that the applicant has been released from the

reception centre and that he has been granted the status of refugee.

The Commission finds no special circumstances in respect of human

rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the

application to be continued, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in

fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the President of the

Second Chamber Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant