FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48062/19 V.A. and Others against Italy and the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 2019,

Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr V.A. and Mrs R.A., who were born in 1991 and 1994, respectively, and their minor children J.A., A.A., I.A. and S.A., who were born in 2011, 2013, 2017 and 2019, respectively, are Nigerian nationals who are currently residing in the Netherlands. They were represented by Ms S. Sewnath, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

The applicants complained that their transfer from the Netherlands to Italy under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (“the Dublin Regulation”) would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention because of a lack of access to rights as beneficiaries of international protection.

On 27 January 2022 the Dutch Government informed the Court that the deadline for the transfer of the applicants to Italy under the Dublin Regulation had expired, that therefore the applicants’ request for international protection would be considered in the Dutch asylum procedure, and that the transfer of the applicants to Italy was thus no longer at issue.

On 7 March 2022 the applicants informed the Court that they nevertheless wished to maintain their application, without indicating any reasons; they also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicants’ asylum application will be examined in the Netherlands and that the risk of their being transferred to Italy and potentially exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention there has therefore been removed for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and 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 under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

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

As to the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction, the Court reiterates that Article 41 of the Convention allows it to award just satisfaction to the “injured party” only if it has previously “[found] that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto”, which it has not in this case. Since no such finding has been made and the Court has considered that the matter was resolved for the reasons above, it will not entertain the request for compensation of non-pecuniary damage.

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 25 May 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar President