FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53960/08
by Phyllis MUNGAI
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas Bratza,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Phyllis Mungai, is a Kenyan national who was born in 1968 and lives in Coventry.
Rule 39 was applied on 11 November 2008 to prevent her removal to Kenya on the same day, and the application was communicated to the Government of the United Kingdom on 19 February 2009. Prior to receipt of the Government’s observations, the case was adjourned on 5 May 2009 as the Government had agreed to consider a fresh asylum claim by the applicant, meaning that there were still domestic remedies open to her.
On 31 December 2010, the Government advised that the applicant had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and suggested that the application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in consequence. The Court wrote to the applicant on 5 January 2011, asking whether, in light of the grant of indefinite leave to remain, she was content for her case to be struck out. She was also advised that, if no response was received by 2 February 2011, her application would be struck out without further notice.
No response was received from the applicant. Rule 39 was lifted on 16 February 2011 since there was no longer any risk of the applicant being removed to Kenya.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant has not indicated any intention to pursue her application, subsequent to the grant of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court further observes that there is no longer any risk of the applicant being removed to Kenya and that the matter has therefore been resolved. The requirements of Article 37 (1) (a) and (b) being met, it is therefore appropriate that the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. Moreover, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require the Court to continue its examination of the application, in terms of Article 37 § in fine.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy