THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 29841/10 Umar RAGE against the Netherlands and 3 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Johannes Silvis , Valeriu Griţco , judges ,

and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged between 27 May 2010 and 3 May 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker , and/or their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond , both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. The applicants , whose applications for asylum in the Netherlands were rejected, complained that their expulsion to Somalia would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 70517/11 also invoked Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Convention in relation to a removal to Somalia. The applicant in application no. 29841/10 further complained under Article 13 that he had not had an effective remedy for his Convention complaint.

3. On 6 March 2013 (in application no. 70517/11) and 22 March 2013 (in application no. 20010/13) the President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicants to Somalia. The same decision was taken by the Acting President on 27 February 2013 and 10 May 2013 as regards application nos. 29841/10 and 29664/13, respectively. In all four cases it was further decided that the Government should be invited to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case s .

4. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications and, after these had been forwarded to the applicants, the latter submitted their observations in reply .

5. In a letter dated 27 March 2014 relating to a different case pending before the Court at that time, also concerning a rejected asylum-seeker from Somalia, the Government wrote to the Court that in 2010 the Netherlands and Somalia had concluded a Memorandum of Understanding, on the basis of which forced returns to Somalia could take place. The present Somali authorities had confirmed this arrangement at the beginning of 2013 and in the course of that year several expulsions to Somalia had taken place. Recently, however, the Somali authorities had requested additional arrangements before cooperating with any further forced returns of Somali nationals. Therefore, at the time of the Government ’ s letter to the Court, forced returns were not taking place. Voluntary return to Somalia continued to be possible.

6. In reply to questions from a Member of Parliament, the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie ) stated on 25 April 2014 that so far no reaction had been received from the Somali authorities to working arrangements proposed by the Dutch authorities in February 2014, and that it was not possible to indicate when the negotiations would be finalised ( Tweede Kamer der Staten- Generaal , Aanhangsel van de Handelingen – Lower House of Parliament, Appendix to the parliamentary record – 2013-2014, no. 1806, p. 1).

THE LAW

7. The Court considers that it is clear from the information submitted by the Government to the Court and by the Minister of Security and Justice to Parliament that the applicant s cannot be forcibly removed to any part of Somalia at the present time (see paragraphs 5-6 above); they are therefore currently not at risk of being subjected to the treatment they allege to be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention or of the other Convention provisions invoked by them . There is, in addition, no indication when this situation may change. In these circumstances the Court considers that it would be less than efficient to proceed to an assessment of the present conditions in the receiving country, the more so when it can by no means be excluded that those conditions will have undergone a considerable change by the time the Government decide that removals can take place. For this reason the Court finds that at the present time it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application s (see I.A. v. the Netherlands , no. 76660/12, 27 May 2014, with further references) and that they should be struck out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Moreover, 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.

8. The Court would additionally observe that not only may domestic law enable the applicant s to challenge a future removal in the Netherlands (see I.A. cited above, § 14), they may also, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, seek to have t he i r application to the Court restored should no domestic remedies capable of staying such a removal be available to them .

9. In view of the above, it is appropriate to lift the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the present cases and to strike them out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

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

Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

29841/10

27/05/2010

Umar RAGE

06/07/1983

Ter Apel

J.M. WALLS

70517/11

08/11/2011

Ali MAHAMED AHMED

01/01/1987

Heerlen

Justa VAN VEELEN-DE HOOP

20010/13

14/03/2013

Mahamuuda HERSI JAMA

01/07/1968

Den Haag

Yüksel TAMER

29664/13

03/05/2013

Yahye Ahmed Olad JIAMILE

03/03/1989

Amsterdam

P.J. SCHÃœLLER