FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48736/06 by S. against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Giovanni Bonello , Stanislav Pavlovschi , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2006,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Belarusian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Helsinki . He was repre sented before the Court by Ms Kirsi Hytinantti, a lawyer practising in Helsinki . The Finnish Government (“the Government”) we re represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

On 10 February 2003 the applicant arrived in Finland and applied for asylum. In support of his application, he stated, inter alia , the following.

From 1985 to 1995 he worked as a security officer for the KGB. In September 1995 he resigned for political reasons since he felt unable to work for President Lukashenk o ’ s regime. He joined the opposition party, the United Civi c Party . He also joined the Belarusian Helsinki Committee on Human Rights and the Belarusian Republican Club of Voters. For security reasons , the applicant ’ s membership was not officially registered and his activities were secret. He became responsible for security and confidentiality issues and he gathered and disseminated information about the acts of the Lukashenk o regime.

In February 2000 the activities of the applicant were uncovered, whereupon he w as arrested by the police. He was questioned for 24 hours, humiliated and tortured both physically and mentally. He w as accused of , among other things, conspiracy and planning a coup d ’ é tat . His detention was not re cord ed.

After his release the applicant was followed continuously and his telephone was tapped. He decided against instituting proceedings on account of the detention and torture. A friend, a former judge, considered that that course of action was inadvisable since it would only escalate the action taken against him . Subsequently, the assets of the applicant ’ s company, whose income was used for his political activity, were confiscated as a result of which its activities ceased. No written decision on the confiscation was issued.

In 2000 the applicant travelled to the Netherlands and to the U SA . On both occasions he decided to return to Belarus in order to fight the regime by working for the opposition.

In August 2001 , when he had returned to the country for the presidential election campaign, the KGB interrogated him and urged him to stop working for the opposition.

On 4 September 2001 the applicant was detained. He w as handcuffed, interrogated, tortured and accused of undermining the stability of the administrative region, abusing the p resident by discrediting his activities in the eyes of the voters and attempting to organi s e a military rebellion. He was released during the night and w as issued with a “final warning” to discontinue his activities. Once again, his detention was not recorded. The next day he escaped an assassination attempt and fled to Moscow . Su bsequently he moved on to Minsk , where he went into hiding.

On 16 December 2002, the applicant again noticed that he was being followed. He decided to go to Finland , where he sought asylum upon arrival on 10 February 2003.

O n 20 January 2004 the Directorate of Immigration rejected the applicant ’ s claim and ordered his expulsion to Belarus . It noted , inter alia , that he had not submitted any documents in support of his arrests and the confiscation of his assets. Nor had he produced any medical certificates of the alleged assaults. It also noted that he had not applied for asylum during his stays in the Netherlands and the U SA although his problems in Belarus had begun before visiting these countries. Having regard also to the perceived insignificant nature of his activities within the opposition party, it did not find it credible that the authorities would take a special interest in him based on those activities.

On 11 March 2005 the Helsinki Administrative Court , refusing the applicant ’ s request for an oral hearing, rejected hi s appeal. On 17 November 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court refused him leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 that he had been denied a fair trial in the asylum proceedings as his interviews had not been carried out by the Directorate of Immigration. Moreover, he had not been granted an oral hearing before the courts. This had most likely had an impact on how his credibility had been assessed.

The applicant also complained that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if expelled to his country of origin .

THE LAW

On 14 December 2006 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be expelled to Belarus until further notice.

On 21 December 2007 the Government informed the Court that, on 20 December 2007, the Directorate of Immigration had granted the applicant asylum and refugee status and that he had been given a continuous residence permit for the period 20 December 2007 – 20 December 2008. Consequently, the Government maintained that the circumstances allowed the Court to reach the conclusion that the matter had been resolved, justifying the discontinuation of the examination of the application. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.

O n 14 January 2008 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that , since the applicant had been granted refugee status in Finland as of 20 December 2007, there was no need to keep the case on the Court ’ s list of cases, unless the Court should consider otherwise.

Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court notes that the applicant has been granted refugee status and a permit to reside in Finland . Agreeing with the parties, it accordingly considers that the matter has been resolved , within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 ( b ) of the Convention (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 97 and 103, ECHR 2007-). 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.

In view of the above , it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out of the list. The interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court should also be lifted.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President