THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24716/14
O.
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 March 2014,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr O., is a Sudanese national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Amsterdam. The Acting President decided that the applicant’s identity would not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Berg, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. The applicant, whose request for asylum in the Netherlands was rejected, complained that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were expelled to Sudan.
3. On 17 April 2014 the Acting President of the Section decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicant to Sudan until further notice. It was further decided that the Government should be invited to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
4. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and, after these had been forwarded to the applicant, the latter submitted his observations in reply.
5. On 3 November 2014 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted a temporary residence permit for the purpose of asylum, valid until 3 November 2019.
6. By letters dated 4 November and 9 December 2014 (the last one sent by registered post), the applicant’s representative was requested to inform the Court whether his client wished to maintain his application to the Court. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
7. The applicant now having been granted asylum in the Netherlands, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved and that, in view of his representative’s failure to reply to letters from the Court, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a and b) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
8. In view of the above, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the present case and to strike it out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 26 February 2015.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy