FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 62395/10 B.L . against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 May 2014 as a Chamber composed of:

Ineta Ziemele , President, Päivi Hirvelä , George Nicolaou , Ledi Bianku , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Paul Mahoney, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2010,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, B.L., is a Congolese national, who was born in 1983. The Chamber 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 Ms A. Gonzalez of Wilson Solicitors LLP, a firm of lawyers based in London.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom in 2005 and claimed asylum. His claim was refused on 7 September 2005 and an appeal against the refusal was dismissed on 1 November 2005 by the then Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. Reconsideration of the Tribunal ’ s determination was ordered on 21 November 2005 by the High Court but the appeal was again dismissed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on 8 May 2007.

4. The applicant made further representations to the Home Secretary on 21 July 2010. His representations were rejected on 23 July 2010 as not amounting to a fresh asylum claim. He sought judicial review but the application was refused on 13 September 2010 by the High Court.

5. The applicant again made further representations to the Home Secretary in October 2010. His representations were refused on 26 October 2010 as not amounting to a fresh asylum claim. He sought judicial review and an emergency injunction as his removal was scheduled for the 9 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time the following day. The injunction was refused. An application to this Court for interim measures under Rule 39 was received at 8.34 a.m. Central European Time on 27 October 2010. It was not accompanied by all relevant domestic decisions and, because of its late submission, the Court was not in a position to consider the request. The applicant was removed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

B. Subsequent developments

6. On 31 May 2011 a Chamber of the Fourth Section decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that they should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

7. By letter dated 27 June 2011 the applicant ’ s representative confirmed that judicial review proceedings remained pending and sought an adjournment of the application pending completion of those proceedings. On 30 June 2011 the Vice-President of the Section acceded to the request for adjournment.

8. By letter dated 8 November 2013 the Government informed the Court that the applicant ’ s judicial review claim had been dismissed. The applicant ’ s representative confirmed on 21 November 2013 that he did not intend to appeal the dismissal.

9. By letter dated 21 February 2014 the applicant ’ s representative was invited to provide updated submissions on the application in light of the judicial review judgment and to confirm whether, having regard to developments, it remained appropriate to seek written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.

10. By letter dated 14 March 2014 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that she was no longer instructed by the applicant. She subsequently confirmed that she did not have an address for him and had lost all contact with him.

COMPLAINTS

11. The applicant complained that his removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo violated Article 3 of the Convention. He further complained that the fact that he did not have access to a domestic remedy with automatic suspensive effect contravened Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

12. The Court notes that the applicant ’ s representative is no longer instructed by the applicant. The applicant has failed to provide an address to enable him to be contacted directly regarding his pending application.

13. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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.

14. 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.

Françoise Elens -Passos Ineta Ziemele Registrar President