THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44092/05
by Ali Reza SAFAHANI LANGEROUDI and Maryam ZENDEH DEL
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2005,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Ali Reza Safahani Langeroudi and his wife Mrs Maryam Zendeh Del, are Iranian nationals who were born in 1979 and 1980 respectively and live in Oude Pekela. They were represented before the Court by Mr J.J. Eizenga, a lawyer practising in Utrecht. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr R.A.A. Böcker and Ms J. Schukking, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants arrived in the Netherlands on 22 September 2003 and unsuccessfully applied for asylum. The final decision was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) on 19 September 2005.
On 4 March 2009 the applicants lodged a new application for asylum. In a decision of 10 March 2009, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) decided to grant the applicants a residence permit for the purpose of asylum. The applicants’ representative informed the Court on 11 March 2009 that in view of this development the applicants no longer wished to maintain their application to the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants originally complained that their expulsion to Iran would expose them to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Under Article 13 of the Convention they further complained about an alleged lack of effectiveness of domestic remedies.
THE LAW
The applicants complained that a forced return to Iran would violate their rights under Article 3 of the Convention and that the domestic proceedings had violated their rights under Article 13. However, the Court notes that the applicants have now been granted a residence permit in the Netherlands and that they are thus no longer at risk of being expelled. Moreover, it appears that they do not intend to pursue their application.

In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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 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.
	Stanley Naismith	Josep Casadevall
	Deputy Registrar	President