CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s30B52FCF { width:208.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 56676/10 H.N. against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   December 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Nicolas Bratza,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr H.N., is an Afghan national who was born in 1992 and lives in Slough. He was represented before the Court by   Haris Ali & Co, a law firm practising in Middlesex. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Kuzmicki of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Afghanistan would put his life at risk. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the asylum proceedings in the United Kingdom were unfair. Finally, he complained that his removal to Afghanistan would breach his rights to private life under Article 8 of the Convention. On 3 December 2010, the Acting President of the Fourth Section decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court that the applicant should not be expelled to Afghanistan pending the Court’s decision. On 10 May 2011, the Acting President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1), to grant priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) and to grant the applicant anonymity (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). On 8 November 2011, the Government informed the Court that, on 7   November 2011, the applicant had been granted discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom until 7 November 2014 on the basis of his marriage to a British citizen. Furthermore, the Government explained that prior to the expiry of his grant of leave to remain in the United Kingdom; the applicant would be entitled to make an application for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom which, if refused, would lead to a further in-country right of appeal. On 15 November 2011, the Government’s letter was forwarded to the applicant’s representatives, who were invited to submit any comments upon the same. On 22 November 2011, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that, in the circumstances, the applicant agreed to the application being struck out of the Court’s list of cases. THE LAW The Court observes that the applicant has confirmed that he has no intention of pursuing his application before the Court, subsequent to his grant of discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court further notes that there is no longer any risk of the applicant being removed to Afghanistan in the foreseeable future and that the matter has therefore been resolved. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the requirements of Article 37 (1) (a) and (b) have been met. 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 continued examination of the case. Accordingly, 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.   Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President