CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .sFBC16547 { width:30.68pt; display:inline-block } .sA2917653 { width:193.95pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 7849/12 R.O. against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26   June 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr R.O., is a Syrian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Kingston Upon Hull. He was not represented before the Court. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Y. Ahmed of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his removal to Syria would put him at risk of torture and ill-treatment. On 17 February 2012, 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 Syria pending the Court’s decision. On the same date, the Acting President also decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was further 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). By letter dated 24 April 2012, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted asylum and leave to remain in the United Kingdom for five years. By letter dated 27 April 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was requested to confirm by 25 May 2012 that, in the circumstances, he agreed to his application being struck out of the Court’s list of cases. The applicant has failed to respond to that letter. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant has been granted five years’ leave to remain in the United Kingdom and that there is no longer any risk that he will be removed to Syria. The matter has therefore been resolved. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the requirements of Article 37 (1) (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