CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 février 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 160 February 2013 Ngendakumana v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 16380/11 Decision 5.2.2013 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six month period Submission of an application form signed by proxy by a person unknown: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant, a Burundian national, complained of a refusal by the Netherlands authorities to grant him asylum. The final domestic ruling was sent to him on 24   August 2010. On 23   February 2011 the applicant’s representative sent an application form to the Court signed “i.o.” ( in opdracht ; the Netherlands equivalent of “ per procurationem ”) by an unidentified person. On 14   March 2011 the representative was notified by the Court Registry that he had to return the completed application form and all relevant documents to the Court by 9   May 2011 and that failure to do so would result in the date of submission of the completed application form being taken as the date of introduction of the application. On 10   May 2011 by fax and on 24   May 2011 by post, the applicant’s representative submitted an original authority for representation. The Registry subsequently pointed out that the application form the Court had received on 23   February 2011 had not been signed by the representative, but by a third person, and asked whether it should be considered the formal application form. On 12   August 2011 the applicant’s representative sent a completed application form which he had signed. The accompanying letter did not contain any explanation for the delay or why the application form submitted to the Court on 23   February 2011 had not been signed by the applicant’s representative. Law – Article 35 § 1: Pursuant to Rule 45 §   1 of the Rules of Court an application had to be signed by the applicant or the applicant’s representative. Accordingly, an application form – even if it contained all the data and documents set out in Rule 47 §   1 – could only be considered to have been validly introduced on the date it was signed by the applicant or the applicant’s representative. Consequently, the application form that had been submitted on 23   February 2011 could not be accepted as a valid application but only as an introductory submission to the Court that interrupted the running of the six-month period. As the application form signed by the applicant’s lawyer was not submitted until 12   August 2011 – after the expiry of the applicable time-limit – the application had been introduced out of time. Conclusion : inadmissible (out of time).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes