THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 66848/10 A.A. against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 May 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Ms A.A., is a Turkish national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Utrecht. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She was represented before the Court by Mr A.W. Eikelboom, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.A.A. Böcker, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that there were substantial grounds for believing that she would be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision if she were expelled to Turkey. She further complained that the decision to reject her request for a residence permit was contrary to her rights under Article 8 of the Convention in that her expulsion, if put into effect, would interfere with her right to respect for the family life which she enjoyed in the Netherlands.

THE LAW

On 9 February 2017 the Government wrote to the Court in the following terms:

“Concerning the above application, I have the honour to inform you that the applicant has been granted a temporary residence permit, valid from 7 February 2017 until 7 February 2022 (see Annexe). Expulsion of the applicant to Turkey is no longer at issue.

In the light of this new development the Government requests the Court to strike the case off its list of pending cases under Article 37 paragraph 1 of the Convention.”

On 24 February 2017 the applicant, having been invited to comment, replied in the following terms:

“The applicant was indeed granted a temporary residence permit for asylum reasons, valid from 7 February 2017 for a period of five years. Under Dutch legislation as it is presently in force, and without a change of circumstances, the applicant can apply for a permanent right of residence and, under certain conditions, for naturalisation, in 2022.

Since this assessment is not the result of new developments — in any event, the Government has not indicated, let alone substantiated, that this would be the case — it must be presumed that the Government admits that its previous assessment in this regard was incorrect. Such a failure to assess an arguable claim with the required rigorous scrutiny is, the applicant would submit, in itself a violation of Article 3.

The applicant contends, therefore, that any reparation for this violation must include that she be granted a residence permit with a starting date that would coincide with the date on which she requested asylum: 22 May 2007. Although even that cannot fully compensate for what she feels are ‘ ten lost years ’ living illegally, at least it would give her the opportunity to immediately benefit from the protection of a permanent residence permit, and to apply for Dutch citizenship.

In the light of the foregoing, the applicant respectfully submits that she is still the victim of a Convention violation and that there is still an interest for the case to be pursued. She would request the Court not to strike the case out but to continue its examination of the case.”

The Court observes that the applicant ’ s complaints, under both Article 3 and Article 8, concerned solely the consequences to be expected from her expulsion to Turkey. As the applicant acknowledges, there is no longer any danger of that happening. The object of the application has therefore been achieved.

In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

Accordingly, the case 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 24 May 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Luis López Guerra              Deputy Registrar President