FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43790/06
by M. A.
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
	Lech Garlicki, President,Nicolas Bratza,Ljiljana Mijović,David Thór Björgvinsson,Ján Šikuta,Päivi Hirvelä,Mihai Poalelungi, judges,and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 October 2006,
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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, M. A., is a Bangladeshi national who was born in 1971 and lives in London. He is represented before the Court by Oxford House Immigration, lawyers practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms E. Wilmott of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant entered the United Kingdom on 11 November 2003 on a false passport and thereafter remained illegally and took employment without permission. In May 2004 he began a relationship with N, who was a British citizen. Their daughter, Y, was born on 8 July 2005. The applicant applied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the basis of his relationship with N but the Secretary of State refused the application and decided to remove the applicant to Bangladesh. The applicant appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”).
N subsequently developed a serious drug problem. The applicant and N separated and Y was taken into foster care. N chose not to have any contact with Y but the applicant maintained extended supervised contact with Y four times a week. The local authority’s original plan was to rehabilitate Y to the applicant’s care but in the event that the applicant’s immigration appeal was unsuccessful, it concluded that adoption would be in Y’s best interests.
On 14 March 2006 the AIT dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 30 March 2006 the AIT decided not to order reconsideration and on 4 May 2006 the High Court refused the application for reconsideration.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the Secretary of State’s decision to remove him from the United Kingdom disproportionately interfered with his right to respect for his family life because his daughter would be placed for adoption, effectively severing his relationship with her until she reached the age of majority.
THE LAW
By letter dated 18 December 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 29 January 2008. By letter dated 18 January 2008 the applicant requested an extension until 18 February 2008. On 30 January 2008 that request was granted.
By letter dated 1 April 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 18 February 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these 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. 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 and discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
	Lawrence Early	Lech Garlicki 
	Registrar	President