THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 46938/10 M.W . against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 17 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Luis López Guerra, President , Johannes Silvis, Valeriu Griţco , judges ,

and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr M.W. , is an Afghan national, who was born in 1956 and , at the time of the introduction of the application, was staying in the Netherlands . He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Timmer , a lawyer practising in The Hague .

The applicant ’ s asylum request was rejected by the Netherlands authorities who, on the basis of the applicant ’ s asylum account, held Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the 1951 Refugee Convention”) against him. In addition an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) was imposed on the applicant. He unsuccessfully challenged both decisions.

On 12 August 2010, the applicant ’ s representative lodged the application with the Court on the applicant ’ s behalf, complaining that the applicant ’ s removal to A fghanistan would be in breach of his rights under Article 3.

On 29 January 2013, the applicant filed a fresh asylum request in the Netherlands. This request was rejected on 5 June 2013 by the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice. On 1 July 2013, the applicant filed an appeal with the Regional Court of The Hague.

On 16 September 2013, the Repatriation and Departure Service ( Dienst Terugkeer en Vertrek ) of the Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice informed the applicant that his removal had been scheduled for 30 September 2013.

On 23 September 2013, the applicant filed a request for an interim measure within the meaning of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to the effect that the Netherlands authorities would stay his removal. He further stated that he had also filed a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) with the Regional Court of The Hague before which court his appeal of 1 July 2013 was still pending.

On 25 September 2013, the applicant informed the Court that the provisional-measures judge of the Regional Court of The Hague had granted his request for a provisional measure. Consequently, his request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was not pursued.

On 9 April 2014, the Regional Court of The Hague rejected the applicant ’ s appeal of 1 July 2013. His further appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State was rejected on 19 September 2014. No further appeal lay against this ruling.

On 5 October 2014, indicating that his removal to Afghanistan had been scheduled for 10 October 2014, the applicant filed a fresh request for an interim measure within the meaning of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court aimed at staying his removal to Afghanistan.

On 8 October 2014, the Acting President of the Section rejected the applicant ’ s request for an interim measure. This decision was communicated to the applicant ’ s representative on 9 October 2014, requesting her to inform the Court by 6 November 2014 whether in these circumstances the applicant wished to maintain his application. As this letter remained without reply, the Court sent a reminder by registered post on 5 December 2014, also requesting updated information about the applicant ’ s whereabouts and specifying that failure to reply could lead the Court to conclude that t he applicant was no longer interested in pursuing his application. To date, this letter has remained without any response .

THE LAW

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.

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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 April 2015 .

Marialena Tsirli Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar President