FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 61852/09
Jawad TAWAKOLI
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Nicolas Bratza,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 November 2009,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the parties’ observations,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the applicant’s representatives on 29 June 2011 regarding the grant to the applicant of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jawad Tawakoli, is an Afghan national who was born in 1986 and lives in Bristol. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Barratt of Bindmans LLP, a firm of solicitors practising in London.
The applicant relied before the Court on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, claiming that his removal to Afghanistan would put him at risk of ill-treatment due to his Hazara ethnicity, young age and lack of family or other support in Afghanistan. He also claimed that, having been in the United Kingdom for eight years, he had established a private life. He had also recently been reunited with his younger brother, and thus claimed to enjoy family life in the United Kingdom.
Rule 39 was applied on 24 November 2009 to prevent the applicant’s removal to Kabul on the same day, and the application was communicated to the Government of the United Kingdom on 5 May 2010. Observations were subsequently received from both parties.
However, on 29 June 2011, the applicant’s representatives advised that the applicant had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court wrote to the applicant on 8 July 2011, asking whether, in light of his recent grant of leave, he intended to pursue his application or was content for it to be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. No response was received. The Court wrote to the applicant on 29 August 2011, asking again whether he was content for his application to be struck out. He was also advised that, if no response was received by 26 September 2011, his application would be struck out without further notice. A letter was received from the applicant’s representatives on 30 August 2011, advising that they would take their client’s instructions and revert to the Court. No further communication has been received.
THE LAW
The Court observes that, subsequent to the grant of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the applicant has not indicated any intention to pursue his application before this Court. He also failed to meet the deadline by which he was asked to inform the Court whether or not he wished to pursue his application. The Court further observes that there is no longer any risk of the applicant being removed to Afghanistan 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 does not require that the Court continues its examination of the application, in terms of Article 37 § in fine.
In view of the above, it is also appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
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