M.W. against Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 22. May 2025. brought, and 12. June 2025. published a decision in case M.W.against Serbia, No. 70923/17.
The decision isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the complainant's complaints that did not have an effective remedy in relation to the prohibition of torture in the deportation procedure, and that the misdemeanor procedure was conducted against him was not fair. The court decided to take the petition from his case listening to the applicant no more intention to participate in the proceedings before the court, bearing in mind that he completely lost contact with his proxy. |
Circumstances Case
In mid-2015, the applicant, unaccompanied, leaving his homeland - Afghanistan - due to the alleged threats of Taliban that his whole family would be killed because his brother was employed by NATO forces as a translator. He passed through Iran, Turkey and Bulgaria on the way to Serbia, allegedly with the help of smugglers.
After two unsuccessful attempts to enter Serbia, the applicant succeeded in September 2016. years. He was issued a certificate of intention to seek asylum and was appointed a temporary legal representative. In the asylum center in Krnjača, the applicant was until February 2017. years.
In February 2017. The Applicant left the Asylum Center in Krnjača and crossed the Hungary where he was arrested, taken into a camp in which he stayed three months, and then deported in Bulgaria.
According to Serbia in June 2017, the applicant filed a new asylum application. His request was the same day when he was rejected, his temporary residence permit was abolished, he was ordered voluntarily leaving Serbia and is forbidden to enter and stay in Serbia until June 2018. Years. In the decision, it is not stated in which the country of the applicant would be deported if he would not leave Serbia voluntarily. This decision confirmed the second instance authority. The proceedings before the Administrative Court against the decision of the Ministry of Interior is underway.
In August 2017. The Misdemeanor court in Sombor was guilged with the applicant for trying the illegal crossing of the border and imposed an educational measure of reprimand. His local police ordered him voluntarily leaving the country and abolished his residence. The applicant claimed that none of these two proceedings were conducted in the presence of his proxy, nor were their decisions handed out.
According to its proxy, the applicant left Serbia in January 2018. years, due to the alleged inefficiency of asylum procedures and inadequate measures applied during the proceedings. The proxy pointed out that the applicant remains in the case of the submitted court.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted the application to the court 29. September 2017 years.
In the representations, a violation of the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: Convention) in connection with the ban on torture referred to in Article 3. Convention, claiming that he did not have an effective remedy in the deportation procedure. An injury to the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6 of the Convention, claiming that the court's decision was made on the same day when the violation was made, that the lawyer was not present, informed or consulted. Finally, the applicant claimed that his decision was not delivered.
Decision Court
The Court is 10. February 2025. He sent a letter to the applicant's attorney asking for additional facts regarding the petition. The applicant's proxy is 10. Marta 2025. He informed the court If the last contact with the applicant had several months ago.
Given that the Applicant did not maintain his proxy and not informed him about where he found, the Court assessed that the applicant had lost interest in further management of the proceedings on this petition.
Considering the above, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding the rights guaranteed by the Convention and Protocols, in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention, occupied the position that it is no longer justified to continue examining the application.
Consequently, the Court decided to delete the application from his case list.