[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Shahbaz MAHWI v the Netherlands - 14033/08 [2008] ECHR 1850 (16 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1850.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1850

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14033/08
by Shahbaz MAHWI
against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2008,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Shahbaz Mahwi, is an Iranian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Veldhoven. He was represented before the Court by Mr M.R. van der Linde, a lawyer practising in Zaandam. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

The applicant unsuccessfully applied for asylum in the Netherlands on two occasions. In the course of his stay in the Netherlands, an exclusion order (ongewenstverklaring) was imposed on him in view of a number of convictions of criminal offences committed by him. In addition, the applicant was admitted for medical reasons to a State-sponsored programme providing drug addicts with methadone.

In a final decision of 26 September 2007, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) rejected the applicant's further appeal relating to his second application for asylum and the imposition of the exclusion order.

On 12 September 2008, the Government informed the Court that by decisions of 22 August and 10 September 2008 the exclusion order had been lifted and the applicant had been granted a permanent residence permit.

In letters of 17 October and 4 November 2008 the applicant stated that he would not withdraw the application until he had received, by way of compensation, a letter from the Government explaining why mistakes had been made in the proceedings on his requests for asylum.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that his expulsion to Iran would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the activities he had previously carried out in that country and due to the fact that such an expulsion would lead to a medical emergency since he would be unable to obtain methadone in Iran. He further complained that his expulsion would also contravene Article 8 of the Convention in that he had built up a network of carers in the Netherlands consisting of people who assisted him in weaning him off methadone and helped him cope with the consequences of the torture he had undergone in Iran.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that his expulsion to Iran would constitute a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the exclusion order imposed on the applicant has now been lifted and that he has been granted a residence permit, so that he is thus no longer at risk of being returned to his country of origin. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out of the list.

Finally, neither the Convention nor the Rules of Court provide for the possibility, at this stage of the proceedings, for the Court to grant the applicant the kind of compensation sought by him (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President