Sufi și Elmi împotriva Regatului Unit

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)197 Sufi și Elmi împotriva Regatului Unit Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recerne n 8319/07 și 11449/07, Hotărârea din 28 iunie 2011, definitivă la 28 noiembrie 2011) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 26 septembrie 2013, cu ocazia celei de-a 1179-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată reamintind obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum ; și măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ;

Am invitat guvernul de la statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)681 [1] FIȘĂ că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL pe care l-a îndeplinit în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . . Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report [2] Sufi and Elmi v UK: app No. 8319/07 and 11449/07; judgment final on 1 decembrie 2011 Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 31 May 2013 Case Summary Căsuța de descriere: The două aplicante were both Somali nationals who complained that their propuned removal to Mogadishu, Somalia, would expune them to a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of each aplicant. The Court considered that any returnee to Mogadishu would be at real risk of Article 3 all- Treatment on account of his presence there, unless suciently well autentificăd to powerful actors in the City to obtain protection. The possibility of internal flight to anumite areas of Somalia may enable the returnee to avoid the risk of Article 3 il-treatment, if if he has close family conections in the area vised where could efectivly seek seek refugiu. If the returneee mais family connections are in a region which is under the control of al Shabaab, or if the region could not be accessed without travelling through an al-Shabaab controlled area, the returnee would be exposed to a real risk of Article 3 il-treatment unless he had recent of living in Somalia and could prin urmare avoid coming to the atention of al-Shabaab.

The Court also found that where it is reasonably likely that a returnee would find himself in an IDP Camp, such as those in the Afgooye Coridor, or in adapost of the humanitarian conditions in Kenya, there would be a real risk that he would be expozed to treatment in breach of Article 3 on account of the humanitarian conditions there. In respect of the first applicant, the Court found that if if were to remain in Mogadishu there would be a real risk of Article 3 il-treatment. If he were to attempt to atte revocate to his town of origin, Quoryley, there would be a real risk of Article 3 il-treatment as the town is under the control of al-Shabaab and the applicant has been in the United Kingdom sine 2003. The Court found it likely that the first applicant would find himself in an IDP settlement or refugie tabara, faing a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 to which he would be particularly vulnerable on account of is psychiatric illness.

As as as as as as as as as as as a doua aplication, the Court found that if he were to remain in Mogadishu there would be real risk of Article 3 il-treatment. El nu va fi capabil să re-locate to a safe area within Somalia. Although members of the Isaaq clan are generally permitted to return to Somaliland there is no such risk, thefact that the Government have jointn not to is removal directions to Somaliland appears to contradict their assetion that he would be admitted there. Individual Measures Just satisfaction: The just satisfaction award has been paid; evidence imploreded. Individual measures: The Government mai general approach is that removal action will not be taken against either aplicant while the country situation remains largly unchanged and if they would be expozed to a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the convention.

Aplicants both applicants will be granted limit periods of leave to remain for 6 months in acordance with the publicshed Discretionary Leave policy of the United Kingdom Border Agency for as as as the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 remains. If the Secretary of State were to conclusion that the situation in Somalia had changed sinence the promulgation of the Court judgment and that the Article 3 risk no longer existentd, the aplicants would also be granted a suspensive in-country right of appeal against that decision. In line with that approach, the Government granted Mr. Sufi sase months Dl Sufićs caseta currently remains under considetion, although he has challenged the lawfulness of his renewed liability to deportation via Judicial review.

Any further considetion of deportation action will the Secretary of State considering whether the Article 3 risk determined by the European Court still remains. As set out above, the Secretary of State would not seek to deport Mr Sufi if considertion conclusioned that the Article 3 risk remains, but would grant further periods of Discretionary Leave. If considetion conclused that the situation in Somalia had changed sinence the promulgation of the Court judgment and the Article 3 risk no longer exists, Mr Sufi would be granted an in-country right of appeal against that decision. Furthermeore, the Government is granting a period of sase months... Discretionary Leave to remain in the United Kingdom to Mr Elmi.

This has been delayed by the lack of urmable fotografs for a Biometric Residence Permit, but is now progresing. Removal action would not be taken against him without consideration by the Secretary of State of whether the Article 3 risk remains. As set out above, if consideration concluded that the situation in Somalia had changed sinence the promulgation of the Court above and the Article 3 risk no longer existentd, dle Elmi would also be granted an in-country right of appeal against that decision. General Measures General Measures: The case of Sufi and Elmi has been followed in subsequent cases of propused removal to Somalia. The subsequent domestic country ghidance case of APP (http://www.leandii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2011/00445_ukut_iac_2011_amm_ors_somalia_cg.html&amm=amm+and+somalia&method=boolean), decisd by the Upper Tribunal on 28 November 2011 took account of the judgment in Sufi and Elmi.

Both cases have been set out in the Operational Guideance Note (OGN) on Somalia publicished on 15 decembrie 2011. Operational Guideance Note provide asylum caseworkers and other decisionmakers with ghidance on handling the main categories of claim from the country Courssed. This means these cases will be followed in determining future cases of propund removal to Somalia, as lung as the faactual situation there remains largly unchanged. Publication: The judgment has been publicished in : http://www.leandii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1045.html&query=sufi+andelmi&method=boolean The case can also be found in the All England Reports: Sufi and another v United Kingdom [2011] All ER (D) 234 (jun) Dissemination: The judgment has been disseminated to asylum case workers in Operational Guidance Notes, as above.

OGNs are publicished on the UK Border Agency website. The Somalia OGN can be found at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/countryspecificasylumpolicyogns/somaliaogn?view=Binary State of execution of judgment: The Government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the caseta should be closed. [1] Numai engleză [2] Numai limba engleză.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)197 Sufi et Elmi contre le Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (Requêtes n os 8319/07 et 11449/07, arrêt du 28 juin 2011, définitif le 28 novembre 2011) (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2013, lors de la 1179e réunion des Délégués des Ministres) Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »), Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée ; Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire : - de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et - de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée ; Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)681 [1] ) ; S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées, DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Action Report [2] Sufi and Elmi v UK: app No. 8319/07 and 11449/07; judgment final on 1 December 2011 Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 31 May 2013 Case Summary