FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33515/16 T.M. and S.Y.M. against the Netherlands

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 January 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2016,

Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr T.M. and Mrs S.Y.M., are Pakistani nationals, who were born in 1990 and 1993, respectively, and who are currently residing in the Netherlands.

The applicants were initially represented by Mr F.L.M. van Haren, and subsequently by Mr N.C. Blomjous, both lawyers practising in Amsterdam.

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the treatment to which they feared they would be subjected if they were to be returned to Pakistan. This complaint was communicated to the Dutch Government (“the Government”).

On 13 October 2021 the Government informed the Court that it had been decided to grant the applicants a residence permit for the purpose of asylum ( verblijfsvergunning asiel ), valid until July 2024.

On 15 November 2021 the applicants informed the Court that they nevertheless wished to maintain their applications; they also claimed just satisfaction.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicants have been granted a residence permit and that the risk of their being expelled and potentially being exposed to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 has therefore been removed for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances 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 the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

As to the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction, the Court reiterates that Article 41 of the Convention allows it to award just satisfaction to the “injured party” only if it has previously “[found] that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto”, which it has not in this case. Moreover, and although the Court is able to make an award for costs when it strikes an application out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention (Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court), it notes that no claim to that effect was made within the time-limit that had been fixed for that purpose. The Court, having regard to Rule 60, therefore makes no award under Rule 43 § 4.

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 10 February 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar President