FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42923/08
by S.L.
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,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 September 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, S.L., is a Sri-Lankan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Clapham. She was represented before the Court by Birnberg Peirce & Partners, a firm of solicitors practising in London.
Rule 39 was applied to prevent her removal to Sri Lanka on 5 September 2008, and the application was communicated to the Government on 8 September 2009. The case was adjourned on 25 January 2010 pursuant to a request from the Government, which was based on the fact that the applicant had a fresh human rights claim pending consideration.
By letter dated 13 October 2010, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted three years’ discretionary leave to remain in the UK and invited the Court to strike the application from its list of cases. The applicant was asked to comment on the Government’s letter and advised that if no response was received by 16 November 2010, it would be assumed that she was content for her application to be struck out. No response has been received from the applicant.
Rule 39 was lifted on 16 February 2011 on the basis that there is no longer any imminent risk of the applicant being removed to Sri Lanka.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant has not indicated any intention to pursue her application, subsequent to the grant of discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court further observes that there is no longer any imminent risk of the applicant being removed to Sri Lanka 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