Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840514-1040083
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 23:39:08+00:00

Document:
Z. c. PAYS-BAS
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche Z. c. PAYS-BAS
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10400/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-05-14;10400.83 Analyses : (Art. 34) VICTIME, (Art. 5-3) JUGE OU AUTRE MAGISTRAT EXERCANT DES FONCTIONS JUDICIAIRES, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURS, (Art. 5-4) ORDONNER LA LIBERATIONParties : Demandeurs : Z.Défendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATION/REQIIÃTE NÂ° 10400/83 Z . v/the NETHERLANDS Z . c/PAYS-BA S DECISION of 14 May 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 14 mai 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : The repeated expulsion of an individual of unascertainable identiry to a state which is not prepared to accept him can raise issues under this provision . The position is different where ihe individual refuses to cooperate with the authorities in establishing his identitv and nationalinâ¢.
Article 5, paragraph I(f) of the Convention : Detention pending deponation lasting almost four months because of the authorities' difficulties in executing the decision to depon. A rticle 26 of the Convention : Where an individual alleges that the execution of a deponation order against him violates Article 3 of the Convention, a remedy which has no suspensive effect is not effective . Article 3 de la Convention : L'espulsion rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©e d'un individu, dont l'identitÃ© ne peul Ã¨tre Ã©tablie, vers un Etat qui n'est pas prÃ©t Ã l'accepter peut poser un problÃ©me sous l'angle de cette disposition . Tel n'est toutefois pas le cas lorsque l'intÃ©ressÃ© refuse aux autoritÃ©s toute coopÃ©ration pour Ã©tablir son identitÃ© et sa nationalitÃ©. A rticle 5, paragraphe 1, litt. n, de la Convention : DÃ©lention en vue d'expulsion ayant dtoÃ© prÃ¨s de quatre mois, due aux difficuli(s rencon trÃ©es par les autoritÃ©s pour exÃ©cuter la dÃ©cision d'expulsion . Article 26 de la Convention : Lorsqu'un individu allÃ¨gue que l'exÃ©cution d'une mesure d'expulsion prise contre lui viole l'article 3 de la Convention, un recours sans effet suspensif est inefficace .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 1 52)
The applicant states that he was born on 9 January 1962 in Lagos, Nigeria, of Guinean parents who have both died . He claims to be a stateless person . He is at present in hiding in the Netherlands . In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr . Venema, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam . The applicant was arrested under a false French identity on 19 August 1979 in Amsterdam for illegal stay . He was removed from the Netherlands on 24 August 1979 . On 28 February 1980 he was rearrested in Amsterdam . This time he alleged to have been born in Puerto Rico and to be American . This information also being found to be false, he was removed from the Netherlands on 10 April 1980 . The third arrest took place in Amsterdam on 14 April 1980 . On that occasion he declared to have been born in New York in 1957 and to be an American citizen . This statement also having been found to be false, he was again removed from the Netherlands . On 12 February 1981 he was arrested for the fourth time in Amsterdam, this time under the false identity of a French citizen . He was again removed from the Netherlands . On II April 1981 he was rearrested in Amsterdam for having tried to use forged cheques . Upon his arrest he declared to be a Ghanese citizen . He was removed from the Netherlands on 6 May 1981 . On 18 Septemb-Cr 1982 he was rearrested in Rotterdam after a vain effort to cash forged cheques under the false identity of a British subject . He was convicted by the Rotterdam police magistrate on 29 November 1982 and sentenced to three months' imprisonment . Upon expiry of his sentence, on 17 December 1982, he was placed in Ronerdam in detention with a view to his deportation, a deportation order having been signed the same day . In the meanwhile the Netherlands' authorities undertook various efforts to establish the applicant's real identity . The applicant, who had first declared that he had arrived in Rotterdam as a stowaway on board of a Nigerian ship coming from Lagos in 1979, later stated that he arrived under these conditions in September 1982 . In December 1982 the Nigerian Embassy in The Hague refused to issue a laissez-passer to the applicant in view of his uncooperative attitude : The applicant refused to make a statement in the Ibu-language or provide particulars relevant for the examination . In January 1983 the applicant declared to the police Ihat he was Nigerian but did not want to go back to Nigeria . In February 1983, after a new visit of the applicant, the Nigerian Embassy informed the Dutch police that the stree t
where the applicant alleged to have lived in Lagos did not exist . Subsequently, the applicant stated that he had lied about his identity and that he was not a Nigerian . On two occasions the applicant filed a request to be released from detention . The Regional Court of Ronerdam rejected these requests on 21 January 1983 and 15 March 1983 . Both decisions were confirmed, on appeal lodged by the applicant, by the Court of Appeal of The Hague : on 2 February 1983 and on 14 April 1983 . Two days before the last-mentioned decision, i .e . on 12 April 1983, the applicant had again been removed from the Netherlands . The plea of nullity introduced by the applicant on 19 May 1983 against the Court of Appeal's decision of 14 April 1983 was rejected by the Supreme Court on 24 August 1983 for having been lodged out of time . On 8 June 1983 the applicant was again arrested in Rotterdam for illegal stay . He was placed in detention and removed from the Netherlands on 10 June 1983 . He retumed to the Netherlands on the same day . On 8 July 1983 the applicant lodged through his lawyer a written request for a residence permit in his capacity as a stateless person . He was convened to present himself in person at the police headquarters in Rotterdam . The applicant complied with this request and filled out the necessary forms on 21 July 1983 . On 29 July 1983, the day on which he had been reconvened, he was informed of the negative decision taken by the local police on 22 July 1983 concerning his request . The authorities considered that he could not be regarded as stateless within the meaning of the New York Treaty of 1954, having regard to his passive and unco-operative attitude in the determination of his identity . Other reasons of a humanitarian nature to grant him the right to stay in the Netherlands were found to be lacking . A deportation order was signed on the same day and the applicant was placed in detention . Also on 29 July 1983, the applicant's lawyer addressed himself to the Belgian Consulate in Rotterdam to enquire whether according to Belgian law the applicant would be allowed to stay in Belgium . By letter dated 2 August 1983 the Belgian Consulate in Rotterdam replied to the applicant's lawyer that according to the information submitted by him it appeared that the applicant did not meet the conditions to be admitted on Belgian territory . A request lodged by the applicant on 29 July 1983 to the Regional Coun of Rotterdam to be released from detention was rejected on 5 August 1983 . On 8 August 1983 the applicant addressed a request to the Minister of Justice for review of his decision of 22 July 1983 .
Since the latter request has no suspensive effect, the applicant fded on 10 August 1983 a request to the Regional Court of Rotterdam for an injunction to forbid the State of the Netherlands to proceed to the applicant's deportation pending a decision on the request for review and pending a decision of the European Commission of Human Rights . He claimed to be stateless and submitted that the refusal to allow him to stay in the Netherlands was in breach of An . 3 of the Convention . As regards the procedure before the European Commission of Human Rights, he submitted that his deportation would hinder the effective exercise of his right of individual petition, in view of the difficulties he would encounter in contacting his lawyer, if deponed . He also referred to the contents of the letter of 2 August 1983 of the Belgian Consul according to whom his stay in Belgium would be unlawful . On 29 August 1983 the President of the Regional Court in Rotterdam rejected the request for an injunction . The Regional Court was of the opinion that the applicant could not be regarded as a stateless person within the meaning of Art . I of the New York Treaty of 1954 on stateless persons . It noted in this respect that the applicant had in the course of the years coastantly lied about his identity and that it was the applicant's own conduct which made it impossible to establish his nationality . The Regional Court further observed that the request for review and his application to the European Commission of Human Rights were both unlikely to be successful referring, as regards the latter proceedings, to the fact that the Commission had considered that the present case was not fit for an interim measure in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure . Moreover, in the light of the Commission's case-law on Art . 3 the prospects of success of the application were not very high, in particular having regard to the applicant's lack of cooperation in the determination of his nationality . The complaints based on Art . 5 were doomed to fail on the same grounds . The Regional Court considered that the expected difficulties in contacting his lawyer once removed from the Netherlands did not justify the issue of a residence permit and in any event did not prevent the applicant from availing himself of his right of individual petition . The Regional Court further held that the applicant could not derive any subjective right from the bilateral agreement between the Netherlands and Belgium on the transfer and taking back of aliens . Here again the Regional Court added that it was in the applicant's own hands to put an end to this situation of travelling back and forth by being cooperative in the detertnination of his nationality . The applicant appealed from this decision to the Court of Appeal of The Hague . The Court of Appeal of The Hague dismissed on 30 August 1983 an appeal introduced by the applicant against the decision of 5 August 1983 by the Regional Cour t
of Rotterdam refusing to put an end to his detention pending deportation . This decision was notified to the applicant on 19 September 1983 and on 26 September 1983 the applicant introduced a plea of nullity against this decision before the Supreme Court . On 31 August 1983 the applicant was again removed from the Netherlands . The applicant returned the same day . On 3 November 1983 the Deputy Secretary of State for Justice rejected the applicant's request for review of his decision . The applicant has appealed against this decision to the Council of State . The applicant is at present living in hiding in Amsterdam .
COMPLAINTS The applicant considers that the refusal by the Netherlands authorities lo allow him to stay in the Netherlands constitutes a breach of An . 3 of the Convention . He funher considers that the fact that the Dutch authorities have deported him 7 times to Belgium and will continue to do so in the future, knowing that he has no right of entry or stay in Belgium, also constitutes a breach of Art . 3 . He is further of the opinion that his detention in the police headquarters which lasted from 17 December 1982 to 12 April 1983 is unlawful in the light of An . 5(I) (f) of the Convention since it could not be considered as a detention with a view to deponation to Belgium, his admittance to that country not being guaranteed, and moreover, the requisite speed for deporting the applicant not having been pursued . He declares that he wishes to obtain the right to stay in the Netherlands or in any other country willing to receive him .
THE LA W 1 . The applicant complains about the refusal of the Netherlands authorities to allow him to stay in the Netherlands in spite of the fact that he has no identity papers and about the resultant repeated deportation to a country which is not willing to admit him either . The Commission first observes that under Art . 26 of the Convention the Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law . In the present case the respondent Government suggest that the applicant has failed to exhaust his remedies, since an appeal against the decision of the Deputy Secretary of State for Justice is still pending before the Council of State (Judicial Section) . - 149 -
However, the Commission notes that the institution of such proceedings do not suspend the execution of the administrative decision and therefore the decision to deponthe applicant remains within the discretion of the authorities . Consequently this remedy is not effective within the meaning of Art . 26 of the Convention and need not be exhausted (cf . also Application No . 7465/76, D .R . 7, p . 153) . It follows that this complaint cannot be declared inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies . The Commission recalls that according to its constant case-law, no right of a n alien either to reside in a particular country, nor a right not to be expelled from the particular country is, as such- guaranteed by the Convention (cf . e .g . Application No . 7729/76, Agee v . the United Kingdom, D .R . 7, pp . 164, 176) . However it has considered in the past that the repeated expulsion of an individual whose identity it was impossible to establish to a country where his admission is not guaranteed, may raise an issue under An . 3 of the Convention, which forbids inhuman or degrading treatment (cf . Application No . 7612/76, Giama v . Belgium, D .R . 21, p . 73) . The circumstances of the present application are to some extent analogous to the facts at the basis of the above cited decision . They differ, however, on one essential point . The efforts undertaken by the Netherlands' authorities to establish his identity and to obtain for him identity papers have failed due to the un-cooperative attitude of the applicant who has presented himself under seven different identities and nationalities in the Netherlands . The applicant has further failed to show that he undertook any serious efforts to be confronted with those authorities who could have been in a position to establish his identity . Furthermore, the applicant having repeatedly stated that he had French nationality, a deportation to France as intended by the Netherlands Government did not seem unreasonable . In these circumstances, the Cornmission considers that it is in the applicant's own hands to put an end to the situation he complains of and that it cannot be ascribed to the Netherlands' authorities . It follows that the application in this respect must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant has also complained of his detention with a view to his deportation from the Netherlands which lasted from 17 December 1982 to 12 April 1983 . In their submissions on the admissibility the Govermnent suggest . here again , that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with the general principles of international law, since a plea of nullity against the decision o f
the Court of Appeal of The Hague dated 14 April 1983 confirming the detention order issued by the Regional Court of Rotterdam of 15 March 1983 is still pending before the Supreme Court . The Commission notes that after the submission of the Government, the Supreme Court has rejected the applicant's plea, namely on 24 August 1983 . Consequently, the applicant has exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under Netherlands' law . Article 5(1) of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person . No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ." Among these cases is the lawful arrest or detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation (sub-para .(f)) . In the present application the legal provision on which the applicant's artest was based is Art . 26, para . (1) (a) of the Aliens Act, which allows for artest of aliens against whom a deportation order has been made . The Netherlands' law does not restrict the duration of detention of this kind . The Commission confirms its view (cf. Application No . 7917/75, Lynas v . Switzerland, D .R . 6, p . 141) that only the existence of extradition proceedings or, as in this application, deportation proceedings, justifies deprivation of liberty under Art . 5(1) (f) . This means that a person to be deported can only be detained for the purpose of securing his deportation . The Commission also confirtns that it might have to consider whether the detention ceases to be justifiable under Art . 5(I) (f) if the proceedings are not conducted with the requisite diligence . In the present case the detention lasted approximately four months . However, as has been pointed out above, the Netherlands' authorities have during that time made considerable efforts to establish the applicant's nationality and true identity, which failed due to the applicant's un-cooperative attitude . Having found no appearance of any lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in handling the applicant's case, the Commission considers that the continuation of the detention to which no reasonable alternative was available, was justified in the circumstances of the present case . 1t follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
(TR9DUCTION) EN FAIT Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare qu'il est nÃ© le 9 janvier 1962, Ã Lagos, au NigÃ©ria, de ents guinÃ©ens aujourd'hui tous deux dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©s . 11 se dit apat ride . II vit aujourd'hui p ar cachÃ© aux Pays-Bas . Pour la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, il est reprÃ©sentÃ© p ar Me Venema, avocat Ã Ro tt erdam . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© sous une fausse identitÃ© franÃ§aise, le 19 aoÃ»t 1979, Ã Amsterdam, pour sÃ©jour illÃ©gal dans le pays . i1 a Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas le 24 aoGt 1979 . Le 28 fÃ©vrier 1980, il Ã©tait de nouveau arrÃ©tÃ© Ã Amsterdam . Il allÃ©gua, cette fois, Ã©tre nÃ© Ã Porto Rico et Ã©tre de nationalitÃ© amÃ© ri caine . Ces renseignements s'Ã©tant rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©s Ã©galement faux, il a Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas le 10 av ri l 1980 . Une troisiÃ¨me arrestation eut lieu Ã Amsterdam, le 14 av ri l 1980 . Cett e fois, il dÃ©clara Ãªtre nÃ© Ã New York en 1957 et Ã©tre citoyen amÃ©ricain . Cene dÃ©claration s'Ã©tant aussi rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e fausse, il a de nouveau Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas . Le 12 fÃ©vrier 1981, il Ã©tait arrÃªtÃ© pour la quatriÃ¨me fois Ã Amsterdam, cette fois sous une fausse identitÃ© de citoyen franÃ§ais . Il a Ã©tÃ© derechef expulsÃ© . Le 11 av ril 1981, il Ã©tait de nouveau arrÃªtÃ© Ã Amsterdam pour tentative d'utilisation de chÃ¨ques contrefaits . Au moment de l'arrestation, il dÃ©clara Ãªtre citoyen du Ghana . Il a Ã© tÃ© expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas le 6 mai 1981 . Le 18 septembre 1982, il Ã©tait de nouveau arrÃªtÃ© Ã Ro tt erdam, aprÃ¨s une tentative avo rtÃ©e d'encaisser de faux chÃ¨ques, sous la fausse identitÃ© de sujet britannique . Le 28 novembre de la mÃªme annÃ©e, il Ã©tait dÃ©clarÃ© coupable p ar le tribunal de police de Rotterdam et condamnÃ© Ã trois mois d'emprisonnement . A l'expiration de sa peine, le 17 dÃ©cembre 1982, il fut placÃ© en dÃ©tention, Ã Ro tt erdam, en vue de son expulsion, un ordre Ã cet effet ayant Ã©tÃ© signÃ© le jour mÃªme . Entre-temps, les auto ritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises s'Ã©taient efforcÃ©es d'Ã©tablir la vÃ©ritable identitÃ© du requÃ©rant . Celui-ci, qui avait d'abord dÃ©clarÃ© Ã©tre arrivÃ© Ã Ro tterdam comme passager clandestin Ã bord d'un navire nigÃ© rien venant de Lagos en 1979, prÃ©tendit p ar la suite Ãªtre arrivÃ© dans ces conditions en septembre 1982 . En dÃ©cembre 1982, l'Ambassade du NigÃ©ria indiqua Ã la police nÃ©erlandaise que la rue dans laquelle le requÃ©rant prÃ©tendait avoir vÃ©cu Ã Lagos n'existait pas . Par la suite, le requÃ©rant dÃ©cl ara qu'il avait menti au sujet de son identitÃ© et qu'il n'Ã©tait pas nigÃ©rien .
A deux occasions le requÃ©rant fit une demande de mise en libertÃ© . Le tribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam rejeta ces demandes le 21 janvier 1983 et le 15 mars 1983 . Sur recours du requÃ©rant, la cour d'appel de La Haye confirrna les deux dÃ©cisions, le 2 fÃ©vrier 1983 et le 14 avril 1983 . Deuxjours avant cette derniÃ¨re dÃ©cision, c'est-Ã -dire le 12 avril 1983, le requÃ©rant avait de nouveau Ã©tÃ© expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas . Le pourvoi en cassation prÃ©sentÃ© par le requÃ©rant le 19 mai 1983 contre l'arrÃªt de la cour d'appel du 14 avril prÃ©cÃ©dent a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© comme tardif par la Cour suprÃªme le 24 aoÃ¹t 1983 . Le 8 juin 1983, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait de nouveau arrÃªtÃ© Ã Ronerdam pour sÃ©jour illÃ©gal, et expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas le 10 du mÃªme mois . B revint ce mÃªme jour . Le 8 juillet 1983, le requÃ©rant fit, par l'interrnÃ©diaire de son avocat, une demande Ã©crite de permis de sÃ©jour en qualitÃ© d'apatride . InvitÃ© Ã se prÃ©senter en personne au siÃ¨ge de la police de Rotterdam, il s'y rendit et remplit les formules nÃ©cessaires le 21 juillet . Le 29 juillet, jour pour lequel il avait Ã©tÃ© reconvoquÃ©, il apprit que sa demande avait Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e par la police locale le 22 juillet 1983 . Les autoritÃ©s avaient estimÃ© qu'en raison de son anitude passive et non coopÃ©rative dans la dÃ©termination de son identitÃ©, il ne pouvait Ãªtre tenu pour apatride au sens du TraitÃ© de New York de 1954 . On ne trouva pas d'autre raison de caractÃ¨re humanitaire pour lui accorder un droit de sÃ©jour aux Pays-Bas . Une ordonnance d'expulsion fut signÃ©e le mÃªme jour, et le requÃ©rant fut incarcÃ©rÃ© . Le 29 juillet Ã©galement, l'avocat du requÃ©rant demanda au consulat de Belgique Ã Rotterdam si, en vertu de la loi be lge, le requÃ©rant pourrait Ã¨tre autorisÃ© Ã sÃ©joumer en Belgique . Par lettre datÃ©e du 2 aoÃ»t 1983, le consulat de Belgique Ã Rotterdam rÃ©pondit Ã l'avocat que, d'aprÃ¨s les renseignements foumis, il apparaissait que le requÃ©rant ne remplissait pas les conditions pour Ãªtre admis en territoire be lge . Une demande de mise en libertÃ© adressÃ©e par le requÃ©rant le 29 juillet au tribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam fut rejetÃ©e le 5 aoÃ»t 1983 . Le 8 aoÃ»t 1983, le requÃ©rant demandait au ministre de la Justice de revoir la dÃ©cision du 22 juillet 1983 . Cette derniÃ¨re demande n'ayant pas d'effet suspensif, le requÃ©rant demanda le 10 ao0t 1983 au tribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam de rendre une ordonnance interdisant Ã l'Etat nÃ©erlandais de procÃ©der Ã son expulsion avant qu'une dÃ©cision n'ait Ã©tÃ© prise sur sa demande en rÃ©vision et avant une dÃ©cision de la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . II se prÃ©tendait apatride et observait que le refus de lui perrnettre de rester aux Pays-Bas constituait une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . Pour ce qui est de la procÃ©dure devant la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme ,
il affirmait que son expulsion entraverait l'exercice effectif de son droit de requÃªte individuelle en raison des difficultÃ©s qu'il Ã©prouverait alors Ã se tenir en contact avec son avocat . Il Ã©voquait Ã©galement le contenu de la lettre du 2 aoÃ»t 1983 du consul de Belgique, selon lequel son sÃ©jour en Belgique serait illÃ©gal . Le 29 aoÃ»t 1983, le prÃ©sident du tribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam rejetait la demande d'ordonnance . Le tribunal rÃ©gional Ã©tait d'avis que le requÃ©rant ne pouvait @tre tenu pour apatride au sens de l'article IÂ° 1 du TraitÃ© de New York de 1954 sur les apatrides . Il notait Ã ce sujet que le requÃ©rant avait menti depuis des annÃ©es quant Ã son identitÃ© et que c'Ã©tait sa propre conduite qui avait rendu impossible d'Ã©tablir sa nationalitÃ© .
Le tri bunal rÃ©gional obse rvait en outre que la demande en rÃ©vision et la requÃªte Ã la Comrnsision europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme ne semblaient guÃ¨re avoir de chances de succÃ¨s, en obse rv ant, au sujet de cette demiÃ¨re procÃ©dure . que la Commission avait considÃ©rÃ© que l'affaire ne justi fi ait pas de mesure provisoire en vertu de l'anicle 36 de son RÃ¨glement intÃ© ri eur . D'autre part, compte tenu de la ju ri sprudence de la Commission Ã propos de l'a rticle 3, les perspectives de succÃ¨s de la requÃ¨te n'Ã©taient pas trÃ¨s grandes, si l'on considÃ©rait en pa rt iculier le manque de coopÃ©ration du requÃ©rant dans la dÃ©termination de sa nationalitÃ© . Les plaintes fondÃ©es sur l'article 5 Ã©taient condamnÃ©es Ã Ã©chouer pour les mÃªmes raisons . Le t ri bunal rÃ©gional estima que les difficultÃ©s Ã© ventuelles pour prendre contact avec son avocat aprÃ¨s son expulsion des Pays-Bas ne justifiaient pas la dÃ©livrance d'un permis de rÃ©sidence et, en tout cas, n'empÃªchaient pas le requÃ©rant de se prÃ©valoir de son droit de requÃ¨te individuelle . Le mÃªme tribunal estima en outre que le requÃ©rant ne pouvait se prÃ©valoir d'aucun droit subjectif en se fondant sur l'accord bilatÃ©ral entre Pays-Bas et Belgique sur le transfert et le retour des Ã© trangers . Ici encore le tribunal rÃ©gional ajoutait qu'il appa rtenait au requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme de me tt re fin Ã cette situation de navette perpÃ©tuelle en se montrant coopÃ©ratif pour la dÃ©termination de sa nationalitÃ© . Le requÃ©rant interjeta appel de cette dÃ©cision auprÃ¨s de la cour d'appel de La Haye . Celle-ci rejeta le 30 aoÃ»t 1983 l'appel interjetÃ© par le requÃ©rant contre la dÃ©cision du 5 aoÃ»t du t ribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam, qui refusait de me tt re fin Ã la dÃ©tention en vue d'expulsion . Cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© notifiÃ©e au requÃ©rant le 19 septembre 1983 et, le 26 du mÃªme mois- ce dernier prÃ©senta un pou rv oi en cassation contre la dÃ©cision, auprÃ¨s de la Cour suprÃªme . Le 31 aoÃ»t 1983, le requÃ©rant Ã© tait de nouveau expulsÃ© des Pays-Bas, oÃ¹ il revint le jour mÃªme .
Le 3 novembre, le ministre adjoint de la Justice rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant en rÃ©vision de sa dÃ©cision . Le requÃ©rant recourut contre cette dÃ©cision auprÃ¨s du Conseil d'Etat . 11 vit actuellement cachÃ© Ã Amstersdam .
GRIEF S Le requÃ©rant estime que le refus des autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises de lui permettre de rester aux Pays-Bas constitue une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . Il prÃ©tend que le fait que les autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises l'ont expulsÃ© sept fois vers la Belgique et qu'elles continueront de le faire en sachant qu'il n'a pas de droit d'entrÃ©e ni de sÃ©jour dans ce pays, constitue Ã©galement une violation de l'article 3 . B est d'avis, d'autre part, que sa dÃ©tention au commissariat de police, qui a durÃ© du 17 dÃ©cembre 1982 au 12 avril 1983, Ã©tait illÃ©gale selon l'article 5 par . 1 f) de la Convention, cette dÃ©tention ne pouvant Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme celle d'une personne contre laquelle une procÃ©dure d'expulsion vers la Belgique est en cours, puisque son admission dans ce pays n'est pas garantie, et qu'au surplus l'expulsion n'a pas Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e avec la diligence voulue . Il dÃ©clare dÃ©sirer obtenir le droit de rester aux Pays-Bas ou dans tout autre pays qui consentirait Ã le recevoir . ............... EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint du refus des autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises de l'autoriser Ã sÃ©joumer aux Pays-Bas en dÃ©pit du fait qu'il ne possÃ¨de aucun papier d'identitÃ©, ainsi que des expulsions rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©es qui s'ensuivent vers un pays qui ne consent pas non plus Ã l'accueillir . La Commission observe d'abord qu'en vertu de l'article 26 de la Convention elle ne peut Ã¨tre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, selon les principes de droit intemational gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . En l'espÃ©ce, le Gouvemement dÃ©fendeur laisse entendre que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© tous les recours car un recours contre la dÃ©cision du ministre adjoint de la Justice est toujours pendant devant le Conseil d'Etat (section du contentieux) . La Commission note cependant que l'introduction d'une telle procÃ©dure ne suspend pas l'exÃ©cution de la dÃ©cision administrative et que par consÃ©quent la dÃ©cision d'expulser le requÃ©rant demeure Ã la discrÃ©tion des autoritÃ©s . - 155 -
En consÃ©quenÃ§e, ce recours n'est pas efficace, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention, et n'a donc pas Ã Ãªtre exercÃ© (cf . Ã©galement requÃ¨te No 7465/76, D.R . 7 p. 153 ) Il s'ensuit que ce grief ne peut Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . La Commission rappelle que, selon sa jurispmdence constante, la Convention ne garantit pas Ã un Ã©tranger le droit, en tant que tel, soit de rÃ©sider dans un pays dÃ©terminÃ©, soit de ne pas Ãªtre expulsÃ© de ce pays (cf . par exemple, requ@te No 7729/76, Agee c/Royaume-Uni, D .R . 7 pp . 164, 176) . Elle a cependant dÃ©jÃ eu I'occasion de considÃ©rer que l'expulsion rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©e d'un individu dont l'identitÃ© ne pouvait Ã©tre Ã©tablie, vers un pays dans lequel son admission n'est pas garantie, peut soulever un problÃ¨me sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention, qui interdit les traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants (cf . requÃªte No 7612/76, Giama c/Belgique, D .R . 21 p . 73) . Les circonstances de la prÃ©sente requÃªte sont dans une certaine mesure analogues aux faits qui ont fondÃ© la dÃ©cision prÃ©citÃ©e . Elles en different cependant sur un point essentiel . Les efforts entrepris par les autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises pour Ã©tablir l'identitÃ© de l'intÃ©ressÃ© et lui obtenir des papiers d'identitÃ© ont Ã©chouÃ© en raison de l'attitude non coopÃ©rative du requÃ©rant, qui s'est prÃ©sentÃ©, aux Pays-Bas sous sept identitÃ©s ou nationalitÃ©s diffÃ©rentes . Le requÃ©rant, d'autre part, n'a pas montrÃ© qu'il avait dÃ©ployÃ© des efforts sÃ©rieux pour Ãªtre confrontÃ© aux autoritÃ©s qui auraient pu Ã©tablir son identitÃ© . En outre, le requÃ©rant ayant indiquÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises qu'il Ã©tait de nationalitÃ© franÃ§aise, une expulsion vers la France, comme le Gouvemement nÃ©erlandais en avait l'intention, ne semblait pas dÃ©raisonnable . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime qu'il appartient au requÃ©rant luimÃ¨me de me tt re fin Ã la situation dont il se plaint, et que celle-ci ne peut Ã¨tre imputÃ©e aux autoritÃ©s des Pays-Bas . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ¨te doit, sous cet aspect, Ã©tre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention .
2 . Le requÃ©rant s'est Ã©galement plaint de sa dÃ©tention en vue de son expulsion des Pays-Bas, qui a durÃ© du 17 dÃ©cembre 1982 au 12 avril 1983 . Dans ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ©, le Gouvernement suggÃ©re, ici encore, que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les recours intemes conformÃ©ment aux principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit intemational car un pourvoi en cassation contre la dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel de La Haye en date du 14 avril 1983 confirmant l'ordonnance de dÃ©tention Ã©mise par le tribunal rÃ©gional de Rotterdam le 15 mars 1983, est toujours pendante devant la Cour suprÃªme . - 156 -
La Commission note qu'aprÃ¨s la prÃ©sentation des observations du Gouvernement, la Cour suprÃªme a rejetÃ© le pourvoi du requÃ©rant le 24 aoÃ»t 19 83, Le requÃrant a donc Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes qui lui Ã©taient ouverts en droit nÃ©erlandais . L'article 5 par . 1 de la Convention stipule :â¢ Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la stlretÃ© . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales . â¢ Parroi ces cas sont mentionnÃ©es l'arrestation ou la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ¨res d'une personne contre laquelle une procÃ©dure d'expulsion est en cours (litt . f)) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la disposition lÃ©gale sur laquelle se fondait l'arrestation du requÃ©rant est l'article 26 paragraphe I(a) de la Loi sur les Ã©trangers, qui permet l'arrestation des Ã©trangers contre lesquels a Ã©tÃ© Ã©mis un ordre d'expulsion . La loi nÃ©erlandaise ne limite pas la durÃ©e d'une dÃ©tention pour ce motif . La Commission conftrme son opinion (cf. requÃ©te No 7917/75, Lynas c/Suisse, D .R . 6 p . 141) selon laquelle seule l'existence d'une procÃ©dure d'extradition ou, comme dans le cas prÃ©sent, d'expulsion, justi fie la privation de libe rt Ã© en ve rt u de l'article 5 par . 1 f) . Cela signifie qu'une personne Ã expulser ne peut Ãªtre dÃ©tenue qu'aux fins d'assurer cette expulsion . La Commission conftrme Ã© galement qu'elle peut avoir Ã apprÃ©cier si la dÃ©tention cesse d'Ã©tre justifiÃ©e en ve rtu de l'article 5 par . I f) lorsque la procÃ©dure n'est pas menÃ©e avec la diligence voulue . Dans le cas prÃ©sent, la dÃ©tention a durÃ© quelque quatre mois . Cependant, comme il vient d'Ãªtre soulignÃ©, les auto ri tÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises ont dÃ©ployÃ©, pendant ce temps, des efforts considÃ©rables pour Ã©tablir la nationalitÃ© et la vÃ©ritable identitÃ© du requÃ©rant, efforts qui ont Ã©chouÃ© en raison de l'a ttitude de noncoopÃ©ration du requÃ©rant . N'ayant constatÃ© aucune apparence d'un dÃ©faut de diligence de la part des autoritÃ©s dans le traitement du cas du requÃ©rant, la Commission considÃ¨re que le maintien en dÃ©tention, auquel il n'existait pas de solution de rechange raisonnable, Ã©tait justifiÃ© dans les circonstances de la prÃ©sente affaire . Il s'ensuit que ce grief est lui aussi manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'anicle 27 par . 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUETE IRRECEVABLE .
- 157 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 14/05/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 26
 l'article 26
 l'article 3
 l'article 27
 L'article 5
 l'article 26
 l'article 5
 l'article 5