Inadmissibility due to declining a government shelter that required cooperation with deportation procedures.

Facts

A.D.-N., a Somali national without identity documents, has been homeless in the Netherlands since his asylum applications were repeatedly denied starting from 1992. After being declared an “unwanted alien,” his struggles included living in inadequate conditions, suffering from health issues, and facing legal barriers to accessing shelter due to his refusal to cooperate with deportation procedures. Court decisions initially granted him the right to basic shelter without requiring deportation cooperation, but this was overturned on appeal. His final attempt to access a designated facility failed because there was no immediate prospect for his deportation.

The author alleges that the Netherlands violated his rights under article 7 of the Covenant by not providing unconditional accommodation and exposing him to inhumane conditions, notably in the Vluchtgarage squat. He argues that the state’s failure to offer basic assistance breaches international and European human rights standards, referencing findings by the European Committee of Social Rights, criticisms by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, and urgent appeals from UN special rapporteurs. Despite not explicitly invoking article 7 in domestic courts, he asserts that his case and living conditions akin to those in a European Court of Human Rights violation cases centralize the article’s essence. Currently, he resides as a squatter in Amsterdam, underscoring his ongoing accommodation challenges.

Admissibility

While the State party argued the author hadn’t exhausted all domestic remedies, particularly regarding his choice not to appeal certain judgments and his refusal to stay in a government-run facility, the Committee noted the author had pursued all available remedies related to accessing a municipal shelter and had indirectly invoked article 7 in domestic courts.

However, the Committee found the claim regarding the Vluchtgarage inadmissible, concluding the author chose to stay in substandard conditions and declined a government shelter that required cooperation with deportation procedures. As for the broader claim of unconditional access to shelter, the Committee deemed it inadmissible due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the author had not pursued available remedies with the same diligence for all options. Consequently, the Committee declared the communication inadmissible.