CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 septembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s4917FDFA { width:207.09pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13538/03 by Jacques TSHIBISHIABU against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Hedigan , President ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mr   E. Myjer ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson ,   Mrs   I. Ziemele ,   Mrs   I. Berro-Lefevre, judges, and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jacques Tshibishiabu, is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo who was born in 1975 and lives in Sluiskil. He was represented before the Court by Ms J.A. Pieters, a lawyer practising in Utrecht. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents Mr   R.A.A. Böcker and Ms J. Schukking, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 13 October 2000 and 30 July 2003. Both applications were unsuccessful; the final decisions were taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) on 12   February   2003 as regards the first application and on 19 December 2003 as regards the second. On 26 April 2006 the Government informed the Court that the applicant would be granted the opportunity to lodge a fresh asylum application. By letter of 20 June 2006 the applicant informed the Court that he had been issued a residence permit for the purpose of asylum and that he wished to withdraw his application. COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Article 3 of the Convention that a forced return to the Democratic Republic of Congo would expose him to a real risk of torture and/or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. THE LAW The applicant complained that his expulsion to the Democratic Republic of Congo would violate his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been issued a residence permit for the purpose of 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.   Vincent Berger   John Hedigan   Registrar   President