In its decision in the case of A.M.E. v. the Netherlands (application no. 51428/10), the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final. The case concerned a Somali asylum-seeker’s claim that, if transferred to Italy, he would be subjected to harrowing living conditions.
The Court noted in particular that unlike the applicants in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerlandi, who were a family with six minor children, the applicant was an able young man with no dependents and that the current situation in Italy for asylum seekers could in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgmentii. The structure and overall situation of the reception arrangements in Italy could not therefore in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country.
Decision of the Court
As regards the applicant’s age, which was one of the relevant factors in making the assessment of the minimum level of severity that ill‑treatment had to attain to fall within the scope of Article 3,
the Court found that there was no indication that the Italian authorities had not acted in good faith concerning the personal information given by A.M.E., as he himself deliberately had told them that he was an adult in order to prevent his separation from the group of persons with whom he had arrived in Italy. The Court noted in that respect that authorities processing asylum claims had to be entitled to rely on the personal information given by the claimants themselves save where there was a flagrant disparity of some kind or the authorities had otherwise been put on notice of a special need for protection.
As the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 was to be assessed at the time of removal or, in case removal had not yet taken place, when the Court examined the case, the Court had to determine whether the applicant, who was now to be considered as an adult asylum seeker in Italy, was likely to find himself, if removed to Italy, in a situation incompatible with Article 3 taking into account his situation as an asylum seeker and, as such, belonging to a particularly underprivileged and vulnerable population group in need of special protection.
The Court observed that he had been granted a residence permit in Italy valid until 23 August 2012 and that his claim that he had been forced to leave the reception centre had not been substantiated. The Court further noted that, unlike the applicants in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerlandiii , who were a family with six minor children, the applicant was an able young man with no dependents. In addition, the arrangements concerning transfers to Italy under the Dublin Regulation had been decided by the Netherlands authorities in consultation with their Italian counterparts. Furthermore, the current situation in Italy for asylum seekers could in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgmentiv. The structure and overall situation of the reception arrangements in Italy could not therefore in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country.
Consequently, the Court found that A.M.E. had not established that his future prospects, if returned to Italy, whether taken from a material, physical or psychological perspective, disclosed a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3. There was no indication that he would not be able to benefit from the available resources in Italy for asylum seekers or that, in case of difficulties, the Italian authorities would not respond in an appropriate manner.
The Court therefore considered this complaint to be manifestly ill-founded and declared it inadmissible. The remainder of the application had to be rejected as well as it did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
Quelle: Presseerklärung des EGMR
