On the other hand, in cases where the applicant was not granted a residence permit, the Court held that it was no longer justified to continue to examine the applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, and decided to strike them out of its list of cases, because it was clear from the information available that the applicants no longer faced any risk, at that moment or for a considerable time to come, of being expelled and subjected to treatment contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, and that they could challenge any future removal before the national authorities and, if necessary, before the Court (see Khan v. Germany (striking out) [GC], no. 38030/12, § 34, 21 September 2016; F.I. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 8655/10, 15 March 2011; Atayeva and Burmann v. Sweden (striking out), no. 17471/11, §§ 19-24, 31 October 2013; and, mutatis mutandis, as regards Article 3, Atmaca, cited above; Ozbeek v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40938/09, 9 October 2012; Sharifi v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 69486/11, 4 December 2012; P.Z. and Others v. Sweden (striking out), no. 68194/10, §§ 14-17, 18 December 2012; B.Z. v. Sweden (striking out), no. 74352/11, §§ 17-20, 18 December 2012; L.T. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 31201/11, 12 March 2013; Isman v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 23604/11, § 24, 21 January 2014; I.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 76660/12, 27 May 2014; H.S. and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 10973/12, 24 March 2015; A.A. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 66712/13, 19 May 2015; and S.S. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 67743/14, 1 September 2015).