CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sB3159364 { width:123.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29084/22 H.N. against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   February 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anja Seibert-Fohr , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14   June 2022, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant anonymity, in accordance with Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, H.N., was born in 1986. He was represented by Ms S. Patel of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, a law firm based in London. The applicant introduced his complaint to the Court on 14 June 2022, when he requested an interim measure to prevent his deportation to Rwanda pursuant to the respondent Government’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for an asylum partnership arrangement. The Court indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be removed before 20 June 2022, 18:00 French time. On 16 June 2022 the Government informed the Court that the Court of Appeal had granted interim relief in the form of a stay on removal until 28 June 2022. On 20 June 2022 the Court informed the parties that it would not prolong the interim measure indicated on 14 June 2022, since the applicant was no longer at imminent risk of being relocated to Rwanda. The applicant, together with a number of other individuals, brought judicial review proceedings challenging both the asylum partnership agreement and the decision to relocate him to Rwanda. On 19 December 2022 the High Court handed down its judgment. It found that the asylum partnership agreement was lawful, but considered that the way in which the Home Secretary had gone about the implementation of her policy in a number of the individual cases before it was flawed. It quashed the individual decisions relating to the applicant on the basis that the Home Secretary did not provide adequate reasons for her conclusion that his asylum claim was inadmissible and her decision was clearly unfounded. The High Court further indicated that if the Home Secretary wished to apply her policy to any of these claimants, she would first have to reconsider the decisions in these cases. The claimants were granted permission to appeal the High Court’s findings in respect of the lawfulness of the asylum partnership arrangement. The Government did not, however, seek to appeal the quashing of the individual decisions. An order issued by the High Court on 16 January 2023 formally quashed the individual decisions in H.N.’s case, together with those of the other successful claimants. In letters dated 1 February and 7 March 2023 the applicant’s representative confirmed that she was last in contact with the applicant on approximately 27   July 2022; that she was unable to communicate with him; and that she had no knowledge of his current whereabouts. However, the representative asked the Court not to strike the application out of the list pursuant to Article   37 §   1   (a) of the Convention because respect for human rights as defined in the Convention required the continued examination of the application. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, in particular the fact that the applicant’s representative has lost contact with him and, in any event, he cannot be relocated to Rwanda without a fresh decision being taken, and in the absence of any other special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, 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. However, should the applicant be issued with fresh removal directions, it would be open to him to lodge a new application with the Court.   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 14 March 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anja Seibert-Fohr   Acting Deputy Registrar   President