CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 septembre 2011

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE90F10EF { width:187.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 30693/05 by Abdul Saboor RAFAT and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   September 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Egbert Myjer,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Abdul Saboor Rafat, his wife Fauzia Golaga and their daughter Lida Rafat, are Afghan nationals who were born in 1955, 1969 and 1988 respectively and live in The Hague. The application was also brought on behalf of the first and second applicants’ four younger children, who were still under age at the time the application was introduced. The applicants were initially represented before the Court by Mr Y. Tamer, a lawyer practising in The Hague, and subsequently by Mr F.-W. Verbaas, a lawyer practising in Alkmaar. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, and their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicants complained under Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the refusal of their requests for asylum and their threatened forced return to Afghanistan. On 19 January 2006 the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government of the Netherlands that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicants to Afghanistan until further notice (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). The Chamber further decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints detailed above. On 13 April 2006 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 20 April 2006 to the applicants, who were invited to submit observations in reply by 1 June 2006. The Government and the applicants’ representative informed the Court, on 22 and 28   July 2011 respectively, that the applicants had been recognised as refugees and granted residence permits for the purpose of asylum on 20   July 2011, after the applicants had lodged a new application for asylum on 10 May 2011. The applicants’ representative stated that in view of this development the applicants wanted to withdraw the application. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In view of the above, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Marialena Tsirli   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President