CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mars 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s71220220 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 38965/02 by Aimable MUSHIMIYIMANA against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   March   2004 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and   Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 1 November 2002, Having regard to the letter of 28 November 2003 received from the respondent Government and the letter of 28 January 2004 received from the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Aimable Mushimiyimana, is a Rwandan national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Amsterdam. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ph.J. Schüller, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant's request for asylum in the Netherlands was refused, the final decision having been taken by the Regional Court of the Hague sitting in Amsterdam on 2 May 2002. On 28 November 2003, the respondent Government informed the Court that the applicant would be granted a residence permit for the purposes of asylum. In a letter of 28 January 2004, the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained that his expulsion to Rwanda would violate his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 13 that he had not been provided with an effective remedy against his expulsion. THE LAW The applicant complained that his expulsion to Rwanda would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, he had not had an effective remedy at his disposal. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been granted asylum in the Netherlands, that he is thus no longer subject to an expulsion order and that, for this reason, he does not intend to pursue his application. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a and b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that 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 examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President