SURVEY ON RULE 39 INTERIM MEASURES

July 2011

Introduction

Since 2010 there has been a substantial increase in the number of applications for Rule 39 interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights. This increasing demand for Rule 39 requests is a result not only of the problems faced by those seeking international protection in Europe, but also the lack of effective remedies at the national level. This survey aims to provide a brief snapshot of the experience of national lawyers within the ELENA network in applying for Rule 39 interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights.

This survey will be circulated to all national ELENA co-ordinators and it is intended that these co-ordinators will also consult with national lawyers applying for Rule 39 interim measures on behalf of asylum seekers with regard to the asylum procedure, expulsions cases, detention, and other relevant areas of concern.

Please return this questionnaire before 17 August 2011.

1. In what Section of the European Court of Human Rights is your State Party listed?

2. Do immigration and asylum lawyers in your jurisdiction have a lot of experience in applying for Rule 39 interim measures? If not, please provide an explanation.

3. Have lawyers in your jurisdiction received training on how to apply for Rule 39 interim measures before the Court? Please provide any further information.

4. In what types of asylum cases are Rule 39 interim measures typically requested in your country (for e.g. Dublin transfer cases, returns to Iraq, collective deportation, border cases, accelerated asylum procedures, etc)? Please explain the context.

5. Does your country collect detailed statistical information on Rule 39 interim requests? If so, could you please provide these statistics?

6. Do you know of any cases where Rule 39 interim measures were granted on the basis of a potential Article 3 violation on grounds other than expulsion, such as mistreatment related to detention, living conditions, access to medical treatment, etc? If so, please provide further information.

7. Do you know of any cases in which the Court requested specific indications from the State apart from preventing removal in expulsion cases when granting Rule 39 interim measures, for instance, ensuring lawyers access to asylum seekers in detention? If so, please provide further information, including whether the request was made at the Court's own discretion or at the instigation of the applicant.

8. Has the Court ever granted Rule 39 interim measures for Convention articles other than Article 3 in your jurisdiction? If so, on what grounds and in what context?

9. Do you have information on whether the Court has written to your Government indicating that it will impose interim measures for certain groups of applicants for a certain period of time? What reasons did the Court provide for these indications?

10. Are you aware of any cases where the Court has requested further objective information on the country of return from the State and/or legal representatives/UNHCR?

11. Are you aware of any cases in which the Court has granted interim measures for an indefinite term? Please provide any details you have.

12. Do you know of any cases where the Court requested further information before granting or when reviewing the nature of a Rule 39 interim measure? Please elaborate.

13. Has the Court ever applied unusual reasoning in its decisions when granting Rule 39 interim measures? One example of such unusual reasoning is the Court's 2010 decision in consideration of a transfer under the Dublin Regulation of a Somali applicant to Greece, when the Court took into account the security situation in South and Central Somalia in reaching its conclusion.

14. Do you know if and in what instances your State has ignored the Court's Rule 39 order for interim measures?

15. Are there any practical obstacles, such as accelerated procedures, to applying for Rule 39 interim measures on behalf of asylum seekers in your country? If so, please provide further information.

16. If your country is one in which lawyers request a lot of Rule 39 interim measures, can you provide any information on why recourse to the European Court of Human Rights is necessary? Are there effective national remedies available or does your country lack proper legal procedures and safeguards?

17. If the Court imposes Rule 39 interim measures, does this influence local procedure when the case is reviewed?

18. If deportation is suspended by Rule 39 interim measures, what are the consequences on detention pending deportation? What kind of stay permit is given while the case is pending at the Court?

19. Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the efficiency of Rule 39 measures, either by way of individual or general measures? If so please elaborate further.

20. Generally, please provide any further comments you may have on requests for Rule 39 interim measures:

Please submit the questionnaire to Jory Hansen (jhansen@ecre.org) before 17 August 2011.