THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10944/13 P.N . against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Dmitry Dedov , President, Alena Poláčková , Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 February 2013,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr P.N., is a Rwandan national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Delfzijl . The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Ms A.M.J.M. Louwerse , a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. The applicant complained that his expulsion to Rwanda would amount to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention as he would not have access to medical treatment which he requires. He also alleged that his expulsion would violate his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article 8, given that he had been living in the Netherlands since 2000. He finally complained under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy for his aforementioned Convention complaints.

3. On 16 April 2013 the Acting President of the Section to which the case was allocated decided, at the request of the applicant, 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 expel the applicant to Rwanda (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). At the same time the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant ’ s complaints detailed above.

4. On 2 September 2013 the Government informed the Court that, irrespective of the Rule 39 interim measure, the applicant would not be expelled at that time, as a recent medical examination had shown that the applicant was not fit to travel and that situation was estimated to continue for at least six months. For this reason, the Government did not consider it appropriate to submit a response to the application at that time.

5. In view of the information received from the Government, and after the applicant had applied for and obtained a deferment of expulsion ( uitstel van vertrek ) pursuant to section 64 of the Aliens Act 2000 ( Vreemdelingenwet 2000 ) valid until 22 February 2014, the President of the Section lifted the interim measure on 13 January 2014. However, the applicant ’ s subsequent request for a further period of deferment was refused by the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie ) on 16 June 2014. Proceedings instituted by the applicant against that refusal are currently still pending. In the course of those proceedings, the Deputy Minister announced that a new assessment would be carried out in light of the Court ’ s judgment in Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016.

THE LAW

6. The Court notes that subsequent to the present application having been introduced and notice of it having been given to the Government, new proceedings were brought in the Netherlands. In this context it reiterates that the machinery of complaint to the Court is subsidiary to national systems safeguarding human rights (see, for instance, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 38, ECHR 2006 ‑ V).

7. Noting that an assessment of the compatibility of the applicant ’ s expulsion with Article 3 of the Convention is at the present time being conducted at the national level – specifically in the light of the Court ’ s recent case-law –, and in view of the subsidiary nature of the supervisory mechanism established by the Convention, the Court considers that it is currently not justified to continue the examination of the application.

8. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, considers that it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

9. The Court would reiterate that after it has struck an application out of its list of cases it can at any time decide to restore it to the list if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course, in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Khan v. Germany [GC], no. 38030/12 , § 41, 21 September 2016 and the authorities cited therein).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 August 2018 .

             Stephen Phillips Dmitry Dedov Registrar President