CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s91ABA0C8 { width:154.45pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 82077/17 A.J. and Others against the Netherlands   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   January 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Dmitry Dedov, President,   Alena Poláčková,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1   December 2017, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants, Mrs A.J. and her two minor sons, are Iraqi nationals who were born in 1971, 2001 and 2012, respectively. The applicants were represented by Mr G.J. Dijkman, a lawyer practising in Utrecht. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, concerning the treatment to which they feared they would be subjected if they were returned to Baghdad, Iraq, and concerning an alleged lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Dutch Government (“the Government”). Subsequently, the parties informed the Court that the applicants had been granted a residence permit enabling them to stay in the Netherlands. The Government requested the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. The applicants were opposed to the case being struck out, because it was not only aimed at preventing their removal but also concerned the questions as to whether a rigorous scrutiny had been conducted of their Article 3 claims and whether they had had an effective remedy for those claims as required by Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW In cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, the Court has consistently approached the underlying issue as one of a potential violation of the Convention, on the view that the threat of a violation is removed by virtue of the decision granting the applicant a right of residence in the respondent State concerned (see, among other authorities, Paez v. Sweden , 30 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII). Having been granted a residence permit in the   Netherlands, the applicants no longer face expulsion to Iraq, with the consequence that the alleged threat of a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention has been removed. Moreover, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 13 and on the procedural requirements of Article 3 in the present case are in essence inextricably connected to the proposed expulsion of the applicants (see Nasseri v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   24239/09, § 18, 13 October 2015, and J.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no.   16177/14, § 32, 27 June 2017). Therefore, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 7 February 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Dmitry Dedov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President