CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .s564605FC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .s56A4E0DC { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s99671D1 { width:16.88pt; display:inline-block } .sEAD7759E { width:228.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 69329/01 by Mohammad Reza HAGHI against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   October   2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 May 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the letter of 20 September 2004 received from the Government and the letter of 27 September 2004 received from the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mohammad Reza Haghi, is an Iranian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Arnhem. He was represented before the Court by Mr P.L.M.P. van Aalst, a lawyer practising in Arnhem. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 26 October 1998. The proceedings on his application are currently still pending. The applicant subsequently also lodged a request for a residence permit in view of the lapse of time taken up by the asylum proceedings. After an initial refusal, this request was granted on 30 September 2003. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his expulsion to Iran would expose him to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. He further complained under Article 6 that he had been deprived of the possibility to present his arguments under Article 3 to an independent and impartial tribunal. THE LAW The applicant originally complained that his expulsion to Iran would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (the prohibition on serious ill-treatment) and that his request for asylum had not received a fair hearing, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, the applicant has now been allowed to reside in the Netherlands and wishes to withdraw his case.       The Court notes 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.   T.L. Early   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President