SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 49662/07 by Laleh GHADERYPOOR against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Antonella Mularoni , Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Danutė Jočienė , Dragoljub Popović , Nona Tsotsoria , Ayşe Işıl Karakaş , judge s , and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2007,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Laleh Ghaderypoor , is an Iranian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the U nited Kingdom . She i s represented before the Court by Mr S alih Efe , a lawyer practising in Ankara . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 8 August 2007 the applicant arrived in Istanbul on a plane from the United Kingdom , where she ha s been living for the p ast five years and where she has been granted asylum. The applicant ’ s nine-year-old daughter stayed in the United Kingdom and was being looked after by friends of the applicant.

The same day the applicant went to Iran . For both journeys she used her Iranian passport. The purpose of her travel to Iran was to visit her seriously ill mother whom she had not seen for years. On her arrival in Iran her Iranian passport was taken away by the Iranian authorities and she was questioned by them.

In September 2007 she re- entered Turkey illegally from Iran and on 16 October 2007 she went to the airport in Ankara to board a plane to London , using her travel documents issued by the British authorities. However , she was detained by the Turkish police on account of her illegal entry into Turkey . With the assistance of her lawyer, the applicant submitted a number of requests to the Ministry of the Interior requesting her release and permission to leave Turkey for the United Kingdom . On 13 November 2007 the Ministry of the Interior rejected the applicant ’ s requests.

On 15 November 2007 the applicant introduced the present application. She also requested under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the Court indicate to the Government not to deport her to Iran pending the proceedings before the Court. On 16 November 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government that it was desirable, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, not to deport the applicant for the next seven days. Thereupon, the authorities cancelled the applicant ’ s expulsion. The applicant was not released from the aliens ’ detention centre.

On 21 November 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to prolong the interim measure until further notice.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that if she were to be deported to Iran, she would be subjected to ill-treatment and even sentenced to death on account of her past activities against the regime in Iran, as well as on account of the statements she had given to the British authorities when applying for asylum in the United Kingdom.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that if she were deported to Iran , she would be unable to see her daughter, who was living in the United Kingdom .

Under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, she complained that she had not been brought before a judge within a reasonable time, had not been informed of her rights and had not benefited from the assistance of an interpreter or a lawyer.

The applicant also complained that her deportation to Iran would infringe her freedom of movement, within the meani ng of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that, despite her having submitted a number of petitions to the Ministry of the Interior, she had not been informed whether or not a decision to deport her had been taken. This failure, she argued, had created doubts in her mind as to whether she would be given adequate time to challenge a deportation order before the administrative courts if such a decision were to be taken at the last moment.

THE LAW

A. Application of the Article 37 § 1 of the Convention

By letter dated 30 January 2008, the Government informed the Court that the national authorities were prepared to grant permission to the applicant to travel to the United Kingdom . The Government ’ s letter was forwarded by the Court to the applicant ’ s representative, who was requested to submit their comments, together with any claims for costs and expenses, by 22 February 2008.

In their respective letters of 8 February and 12 February 2008 the applicant ’ s legal representative and the Government informed the Court that the applicant had left Turkey for the United Kingdom on 2 February 2008.

By letter dated 19 February 2008 the applicant ’ s legal representative informed the Court that the applicant no longer wished to pursue her application.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer intending to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and to strike the case out of the list.

B. Application of Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court

Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides:

“When an application has been struck out, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. If an award of costs is made in a decision striking out an application which has not been declared admissible, the President of the Chamber shall forward the decision to the Committee of Ministers ”

The applicant claimed a total amount of 3,400 euros (EUR) in respect of her costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court. This sum included EUR 3,000 in respect of the fees of her legal representative, for which she submitted an invoice in the amount of 5,901 Turkish liras (TRY). The remaining EUR 400 was claimed in respect of notary ’ s fees for the preparation of her power of attorney and for the costs of translation, the travel of her legal representative and telephone and facsimile expenses.

The Government argued that, as the decision to be taken by the Court would be in the nature of an inadmissibility decision, it was unnecessary to respond to the applicant ’ s claims.

The Court reiterates that, pursuant to the above-mentioned Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court, the issue of an award in respect of costs and expenses in applications which are struck out is left to its discretion.

In this connection, the Court further reiterates that the general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention. In other words, in order to be reimbursed, the costs must relate to the alleged violation or violations and be reasonable as to quantum. Furthermore, under Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court, itemised particulars of any claim made under Article 41 of the Convention must be submitted, together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see, for example, El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 39 , 20 December 2007 , and the cases cited therein; see also J.M. v. the United Kingdom ( dec .), no. 41518/98, ECHR 2000 ‑ X ) .

In the instant case, in support of her claims for costs and expenses the applicant submitted a tax invoice drawn up by her legal representative. The invoice shows that “YTL 5,901 has been paid to Mr Salih Efe in respect of legal advice and representation in the case of Ghaderypoor v. Turkey ”.

However, neither the invoice nor the applicant ’ s claims for costs and expenses submitted to the Court specify the exact nature of the legal services provided by Mr Efe or provide information on how many hours were spent by him in litigating the application (see, mutatis mutandis , Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § § 60-61 , 7 December 2007 ). That being so, although the Court is prepared to consider the costs and expenses specified by the applicant to have been actually incurred , it cannot examine the extent to which they were necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum .

In light of the above, and having regard to the information in its possession, the Court considers it reason able to award the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. To this amount is to be added any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. As to default interest, the Court considers it appropriate that it should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Françoise Elens - Passos Françoise Tulkens Deputy Registrar President