CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 septembre 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 63230/19 M.T. against the United Kingdom (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   September 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President,   Jolien Schukking ,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3   December 2019, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant anonymity under Rule   47 § 4 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms S. Foulner, a lawyer practising in London with Wilson Solicitors LLP. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention concerning his deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo were communicated to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”). The Court received friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the United Kingdom in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government that, prior to his deportation, the authorities would carry out an independent and impartial examination of his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, with reference to the Court’s most recent case-law (namely, Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no.   41738/10, 13 December 2016 and Savran v.   Denmark [GC], no.   57467/15, 7   December 2021, in relation to his Article   3 complaint, and Boultif v. Switzerland , no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX and Üner v.   the   Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII, in respect of his Article 8 complaint). THE LAW The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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 in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 October 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s declaration 63230/19 03/12/2019   M.T. 1989 Siobhan Foulner (Wilson   Solicitors LLP, Tottenham, London) 07/06/2022 07/06/2022