CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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. 30756/12 F.M. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   November 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr F.M., is an Iranian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Den Haag. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Mr A.W. Eikelboom, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   R.A.A. Böcker, and their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to a real risk of treatment in breach of this provision if he were expelled to Iran. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in Dutch national law in terms of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. By letter of 28 October 2013 the Government were requested to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. By letter of 15 January 2014 the Government informed the Court that new information had come to the attention of the Government which it had not been possible to consider in the proceedings regarding the applicant’s first and second asylum request. Consequently, the applicant would be invited by the immigration authorities to lodge a fresh asylum request. By letter of 12 March 2014 the Government informed the Court that on 10 March 2014 the applicant had lodged a fresh asylum request and that his expulsion to Iran would be suspended for the duration of this asylum procedure. On 5 May 2014 the President of the Section decided to adjourn sine die the Court’s proceedings until a final decision would be taken on the applicant’s third asylum request. By letter of 28 July 2014 the Government informed the Court that by decision of 24 July 2014 the applicant had been granted a residence permit in the Netherlands. Consequently, they requested the Court to strike the case out of the list of pending cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. By letter of 15 August 2014 the applicant’s representative also informed the Court that the applicant had been granted a residence permit and that he therefore requested the Court to strike the case out of the list of pending cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. 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, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck 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