THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 46765/99 by M.T. and Others against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) , sitting on 30 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr R. Türmen , Mr B. Zupančič , Mrs H.S. Greve , Mr K. Traja , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 March 1999,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are M. T., born in 1964, his wife M. A., born in 1965, and their children Av. and Az ., born in 1986 and 1990 respectively. They are Iranian nationals of Kurdish origin and Sunni Moslems. The first applicant was a member of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (“KDPI”). The applicants are represented by the Iranian Refugees’ Alliance Inc., a non-governmental organisation based in the United States of America.

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

The first applicant stated that he had become politically active in high school in 1979 and has been a supporter of the KDPI ever since. On 15 June 1987 he was arrested for his suspected KDPI membership and was detained for two months during which time he had been tortured.

Following a car accident in 1991 in which the first applicant was injured and three passengers of the other car were killed and one injured, the first applicant was detained by the local gendarmerie . On 24 May 1991 the court in the province of Zancan ordered his detention. He was released on 18 August 1991 on bail.

A judge convicted the first applicant of unintentional homicide and sentenced him to pay an excessive amount of “blood money” to the plaintiffs. On 30 November 1995 an administrative detention order was issued against him. He learned that the Iranian authorities were accusing him of intentional homicide by alleging that the KDPI had planned the accident and that he had executed the plan. He was detained and released on 8 July 1996.

The applicants entered Turkey on 24 August 1997 and made an application to the UNHCR. The UNHCR refused the applicants’ requests for political asylum.

The Turkish authorities granted the applicants a provisional residence permit which had been later renewed until September 1998.

On 13 November 1998 and 8 January 1999 the applicants received deportation orders from the Turkish authorities.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicants claimed in their application lodged with the Court on 10 March 1999 that in the event of their return to Iran they would be in danger of being exposed to punishment or ill-treatment. They invoked Art icles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

On 30 March 1999 the Court decided not to indicate to the respondent Government the interim measure requested by the applicants under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

On 19 April 1999 the respondent Government informed the Court about the decision of the Turkish Ministry of the Interior not to deport the applicants while their application was pending before the Court. The Ministry of the Interior had also asked the relevant local authorities not to expel the applicants and also to place them at a fixed address.

On 7 November 1999 the applicants informed the Court that the UNHCR had informed the applicants on 6 May 1999 that their case had been reviewed and rejected. The applicants asked the Court to reconsider its decision not to apply Rule 39.

On 23 November 1999 the Court rejected this request.

On 11 March 2002 the applicants’ legal representative informed the Court about a decision taken by the UNHCR in September 2000 recognising the applicants as refugees. He also informed the Court that the applicants had been resettled in Finland in April 2001. He finally informed the Court about the applicants’ wish to maintain their complaints regardless of the fact that they were no longer at risk of being expelled to Iran.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention of their threatened expulsion to Iran. They claimed that they risked execution or detention or torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the Iranian authorities resulting in the permanent destruction of their family.

The applicants further complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they received no legal assistance in the proceedings before the Turkish authorities and that they were not given sufficient time to lodge their appeals against the deportation orders.

Finally, the applicants complained that the Turkish authorities’ exclusive deportation of non-European refugees who fail to settle in a third country constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicants, who were resettled in Finland, maintained their complaints and claimed that although they were no longer at risk of being returned to Iran they have had arguable claims under Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention at the time of their intended removal to Iran which should be examined on their merits by the Court.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified in paragraph 1 of that Article.

Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if :

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”

Article 37 § 1 in fine states :

“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court notes that the applicants are now living in Finland. Given that the fears which they harboured about their forced return to Iran have been removed, the Court considers that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see G.H.H.  v. Turkey , no. 43258/98, § 28, ECHR 2000-VIII). The Court considers, therefore, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases the Court has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there were substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned, if expelled or extradited, would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, §§ 107-08; the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97 and finally, Jabari v. Turkey , no. 40035/98, ECHR 2000-VIII). In doing so, the Court specified the nature and extent of the Contracting States’ obligations under the Convention in that regard.

Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President