FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 12252/12 P.R . against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 4 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou , President, Nona Tsotsoria , Paul Mahoney, judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 February 2012,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, P.R., is a Sri-Lankan national, who was born in 1973 and lives in London . The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4 ).

2. The applicant was represented before the Court by Birnberg Peirce & Partners , a legal firm practising in London . The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, Ms I. Rao, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office .

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The applicant has complained to the Court that his removal to Sri Lanka would violate Article 3 of the Convention owing to a real risk of ill-treatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities.

4. By letter dated 26 June 2013 the applicant ’ s Article 3 complaint was communicated to the Government who were invited to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint before 14 August 2013.

5. On 6 August 2013 the Government wrote to the Court setting out their proposal to re-examine the applicant ’ s protection claim in light of new domestic country guidance from the Upper Tribunal (IAC) in GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC). The Government requested an adjournment of the case to enable such a review to be undertaken.

6. By letter dated 7 August 2013 the Government ’ s proposal was sent to the applicant ’ s representative, who was requested to submit any comments in reply by 12 August 2013.

7. On 12 August 2013 the applicant ’ s representatives wrote to the Court agreeing that the Government should be given time to conduct a review. They requested that this review be completed within a one to two month period.

8. On 12 August 2013 the Government advised the Court that a review of the applicant ’ s case would be completed by 12 November 2013 at the latest. The applicant ’ s representatives were advised accordingly.

9. On 30 August 2013 the President of the Section decided to adjourn the Court ’ s proceedings pending the Government ’ s review of the applicant ’ s protection claim.

10. On 1 November 2013 the Secretary of State reviewed the applicant ’ s claim but concluded that he was not entitled to international protection. The applicant ’ s representatives requested that the Government reconsider this decision.

11. On 23 January 2014 the Government advised the Court that the Secretary of State had decided that there was no need for any further consideration to be given to the applicant ’ s case.

12. The applicant ’ s representatives were asked to confirm by 10 March 2014 if he wished to continue with his application to the Court or if he consented to it being struck from the Court ’ s list. Should he wish to continue, the Court requested that particular regard be had to the fact that it had been open to the applicant to bring judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State ’ s decision of 1 November 2013. No response was received by the Court.

13. By letter dated 14 April 2014, sent by recorded delivery, the applicant ’ s representatives were asked to confirm by 28 April 2014 whether the applicant wished to continue with his complaints or if he consented to his case being struck out. It was noted that a failure to reply may lead the Court to conclude that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases. To date no response has been received by the Court.

14. On 8 July 2014 the Government advised the Court that the applicant ’ s representatives had made fresh representations for asylum on 22 April 2014 and that the Secretary of State had refused those representations by way of decision dated 10 June 2014. There is no indication that the applicant applied for judicial review of that decision. In addition, the applicant ’ s representatives have not advised the Court of the recent decision taken in their client ’ s case.

COMPLAINT

15. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his removal to Sri Lanka would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities.

THE LAW

16. Th e Court considers that, in the 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.

17. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list, without prejudice to the Court ’ s power under Rule 43 § 5 to reinstate cases to its list if it considers that exceptional circumstances so justify.

For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,

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

FatoÅŸ Aracı George Nicolaou              Deputy Registrar President