THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41/03
by Marine SOKRATIAN
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrE. Myjer, judges,
and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2002,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Armenian Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marine Sokratian, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1957 and is currently residing in Winschoten. She is represented before the Court by Mr R.J. Hamerslag, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The respondent Government are represented by 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.
Having entered the Netherlands in 1994, the applicant and her son, who was born in 1988, made three unsuccessful attempts to be granted either asylum or a residence permit for reasons related to the applicant’s psychological problems for which, she claimed, she would be unable to receive treatment in Armenia.
On 2 June 2005 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had been issued a residence permit.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that her expulsion to Armenia would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. She further complained that she had not had an effective remedy as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant originally complained that her expulsion to Armenia would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had not had an effective remedy at her disposal. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been granted a residence permit. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 b of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that the matter has been resolved and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerBoštjan M. Zupančıč
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy