CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s71220220 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s564605FC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s97987C45 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:18pt; font-size:14pt } .s511DB07E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:18pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDB3D064B { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 7233/02 by Hesam SAFAWY BAYAT against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   July   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hesam Safawy Bayat, is an Iranian national, who was born in 1963 and is currently residing in Amsterdam. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ferschtman, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam, as well as by his spouse, Ms I. Carlsen. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant made three unsuccessful requests for asylum and/or a residence permit for compelling humanitarian reasons, followed by a request for reconsideration of the final refusal. In the meantime, on 7 May 2002, the applicant married a Norwegian national with settled immigrant status in the Netherlands. On 14   June   2002 the applicant requested a residence permit for the specific purpose of “family reunion with an economically active community national”. After an initial refusal, the applicant was granted leave to remain in the Netherlands for this purpose on 31   March   2003. COMPLAINT The applicant originally complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his expulsion to Iran would expose him to a real risk of death, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. THE LAW The applicant complained that his expulsion to Iran would be contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which protect the right to life and freedom from torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, the Court notes that the applicant has now been allowed to reside in the Netherlands and that he is thus no longer subject to an expulsion order. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b and c) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that the matter has been resolved and 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 examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President