BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mohamed ISSE SECK v the Netherlands - 6781/06 [2011] ECHR 838 (10 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/838.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 838 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
6781/06
by Mohamed ISSE SECK
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall, President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mohamed Isse Seck, was a Somali national who was born in 1964 and lived in Tilburg. He was represented before the Court by Mrs L. Vellenga-van Nieuwkerk, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained that his expulsion to Somalia would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
On 17 February 2006 the Acting President of the Section decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be expelled to Somalia until 3 March 2006. On 2 March 2006 the Court decided to prolong this interim measure until further notice. At the same time the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b), to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint detailed above but that the Government should not, at that stage, be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
By letters of 20 October 2010 and 28 February 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that the applicant had died, that no relatives or heirs had been traced, and that she (the representative) agreed to the case being struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that no heirs of the applicant have come forward expressing a wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena Tsirli Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President