CHAUDHRY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 17489/12 • ECHR ID: 001-127859
Document date: October 1, 2013
- 1 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 17489/12 Mahmooda Khanam CHAUDHRY against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President, Ledi Bianku, Paul Mahoney, judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 March 2012 ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Mahmooda Khanam Chaudhry , was born in 1941. She has dual Pakistani-United States nationality. She lives in Lahore. She was represented before the Court by NA & Co Solicitors , Belfast .
The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M s R. Tomlinson, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The applicant complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that she had no right of appeal against the decision to refuse her indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom because, at that time, she s till had leave to remain on a six month visitor visa. The Govenrment were given notice of the ap plciation on 16 November 2012. They submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. Th ose observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letters of 30 April and 24 July 2013.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President