THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9583/06
by Intzar OSMAN SULEIMAN MAHMOUD ABDULLAH
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Intzar Osman Suleiman Mahmoud Abdullah, is a Sudanese national who was born in 1971 and lives in Leusden. She was represented before the Court by Ms C. Lucassen, a lawyer practising in Arnhem. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant arrived in the Netherlands on 24 August 2003 and applied for asylum on 1 September 2003. She submitted that she fled her country of origin after she had fallen pregnant out of wedlock, which is a criminal offence in Sudan punishable by 100 lashes. She further submitted that she feared ill-treatment at the hands of her father and her uncles for bringing shame on the family; her father had already tried to kill her once while she was in a hospital.
The applicant’s asylum application was rejected in final instance by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 7 September 2005.
After notice of the present application had been given to the respondent Government on 18 December 2008, the applicant’s representative informed the Court on 2 February 2009 that the applicant had been granted a residence permit valid from 10 January 2007 until 2 February 2011, for which reason she wanted to withdraw her application.
On 10 March 2009 the Government confirmed the information provided by the applicant’s representative and submitted that, in the light of this, they would refrain from submitting any observations on the merits of the application.
COMPLAINT
The applicant originally complained that her expulsion to Sudan would expose her to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that a forced return to Sudan would violate her rights under Article 3 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been granted a residence permit, and that she is thus no longer at risk of being expelled. Moreover, it appears that she does not intend to pursue her application.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy