CAT/C/70/D/743/2016
4.33 The State party emphasizes that following the adoption by the Committee, on 23
November 2015, of its decision concerning communication No. 580/2014, the complainant’s
asylum case was reopened. The case was reconsidered by the Refugee Appeals Board on 14
March 2016 at an oral hearing, based, inter alia, on the report on the medical examination by
the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group and the Committee’s decision concerning
communication No. 580/2014. In its decision of 17 March 2016, the Board found that the
complainant had failed to substantiate his grounds for asylum, and his request for a residence
permit was rejected. The State party considers that the Board has given full consideration to
the Committee’s decision of 23 November 2015.
4.34 Regarding the present case, the State party points out that the complainant has
submitted no new information to justify yet another examination by the Refugee Appeals
Board. Accordingly, the present communication should be deemed inadmissible. In these
circumstances, the State party decided not to accommodate the Committee’s request for
interim measures in this particular case, without prejudice to the State party’s full support for
the opportunity of individuals to present individual communications to the Committee and
for the Committee’s requests for interim measures in order to avoid irreparable harm.
4.35 In the light of the above considerations, the State party believes that the
communication should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and
rule 113, paragraph (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedure, because, since the same
matter has already been examined by the Committee, it constitutes an abuse of the individual
communications procedure. The case is also inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under
rule 113, paragraph (b), and rule 115, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure.
Additional submissions by the parties
By the complainant
5.
In a letter dated 21 March 2017, the complainant informed the Committee that he had
gone in hiding in the light of the State party’s intention to deport him. He added that he had
initiated a lawsuit with the City Court of Copenhagen, seeking authorization to stay in
Denmark.
By the State party
6.
In a note verbale dated 8 February 2019, the State party noted that the complainant’s
latest submission did not give rise to any further observations. On 4 November 2016, the
complainant appealed to the City Court of Copenhagen against the decision by the Refugee
Appeals Board not to maintain the suspension of the time limit for his departure. On 3 March
2017, the City Court of Copenhagen decided that the proceedings did have a suspensive effect
on the time limit for the complainant’s departure. On appeal, on 6 July 2017, the Eastern
High Court decided that the proceedings before the court did not have suspensive effect. On
15 November 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Eastern High Court. On
18 December 2018, the complainant’s counsel revoked the national court proceedings in the
light of the complainant’s removal to Turkey.
On behalf of the complainant
7.1
In letters dated 14 November 2019 and 4 February 2020, the complainant’s counsel
explained that the complainant had contacted him following his deportation. He submitted a
copy of a medical report on the complainant dated 27 January 2020.
7.2
The counsel refers to his observations regarding the follow-up to communication No.
580/2014, and emphasizes that the complainant’s forcible return to Turkey in spite of the
Committee’s request for interim measures request constituted a breach by the State party of
its obligations under article 22 of the Convention.
7.3
The complainant informed the counsel that following his deportation, he had been
tortured by the police in Turkey and that, at present, he was enrolled in the army to perform
his compulsory military service.
9