W.K. v. HUNGARY

 
 
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14442/18
W.K. against Hungary
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 June 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2018,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1.  The applicant, Mr W.K., is a Congolese national who was born in 1976. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Miskolczi, a lawyer practising in Nyíregyháza.
2.  The applicant complained that his removal to Democratic Republic of the Congo would put him at a serious risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
3.  On 26 March 2018 the applicant requested the Court to prevent his removal to Congo. On 28 March 2018 the Court indicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It also decided that the applicant’s identity was not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
4.  On 27 November 2018 the case was communicated to the Government and, on 25 January 2019, they submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. They further informed the Court that, on 14 July 2018, the applicant had left his designated place of stay and that, since then, his whereabouts were unknown. In view of this, they asked the Court to strike the application out of its list on account of the applicant’s loss of contact with his legal representative, which, in their opinion, warranted the conclusion that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the application.
5.  By letter of 11 March 2019 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that after the applicant had been released from detention in June 2018, he had tried to contact him several times to no avail. Upon his enquiry about the applicant’s status, the asylum authorities had informed him that the applicant had entered France in July 2018 and had applied for asylum there on 8 February 2019. He maintained that if the applicant was transferred to Hungary under the Dublin III Regulation, he would again be at risk of refoulement to Congo.
6.  In a letter of 11 April 2019 the Government maintained their position that the application should be struck out of the list of cases.
THE LAW
7.  The Court reiterates that an applicant’s representative must not only supply a power of attorney or written authority (Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court) but that it is also important that contact between the applicant and his or her representative be maintained throughout the proceedings. Such contact is essential both in order to learn more about the applicant’s particular situation and to confirm the applicant’s continuing interest in pursuing the examination of his or her application (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium [GC], no. 60125/11, § 35, 17 November 2016).
8.  In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant did not maintain contact with his lawyer and failed to keep him informed of his whereabouts or to provide him with means of contact. Accordingly, it considers that it can conclude on that basis that the applicant has lost interest in the proceedings and no longer intends to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see V.M. and Others, cited above, § 36).
9.  Whilst it is true that the applicant’s representative has power to represent him throughout the entire proceedings before the Court, that power does not by itself justify pursuing the examination of the case (see V.M. and Others, cited above, § 37). It would appear in the present case that the last time the applicant and his lawyer were in contact was in June 2018, which is several months before the case was communicated to the Government. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant’s representative cannot now meaningfully pursue the proceedings before it, in the absence of instructions from his client (ibid.).
10.  The Court also takes note of the concern expressed by the applicant’s representative that in the event the applicant was returned to Hungary, he could be at risk of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It notes in this respect that the applicant will have the opportunity to lodge a new application with the Court (including the possibility of requesting an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) should that need arise. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application.
11.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and, consequently, to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 June 2019.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
 
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy