The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004).

In this regard, the Court notes that it has found on many occasions that a matter had been resolved or that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of an application when it appeared that an applicant would not be expelled, either because a residence permit had been granted (see, for instance, O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, § 25, 18 February 2014, and Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003), because a fresh determination by the domestic authorities of the applicant's particular circumstances was pending (see, for instance, Sharifi v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 69486/11, 4 December 2012, and F.I. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 8655/10, 15 March 2011), or because it was not possible to remove the applicant to his or her country of origin (see I.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no.76660/12, § 20, 27 May 2014, and Isman v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 23604/11, § 24, 21 January 2014).