Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook (c), and that there is therefore no longer any objective justification for the applicant to pursue his application, the Court considers that it must examine whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed.258 Thus, in a case where the applicant complains of his or her impending expulsion to a country where he or she runs a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in violation of Article 3, the Court will conclude that the matter at issue has been resolved if the respondent Contracting Party subsequently issues the applicant a residence permit thereby eliminating the possibility of deportation. After all, in such a situation, where the applicant no longer faces expulsion, the risk of ill-treatment also no longer exists.259 c) Strike Out “for any other reason” (Article 37 § 1 (c)) This provision gives the Court a large measure of discretion and may, for example, be used in a situation where the applicant wishes to pursue his or her application even though in the view of the Court this is no longer necessary. Thus, the Court struck out three cases introduced by Iranian nationals and their families in which they complained that their expulsion to Iran by the Turkish Government would expose them to treatment contrary to Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the Convention. However, after submitting their applications they moved to and settled in Finland, Norway, and Canada respectively. They nevertheless informed the Court that they wished to pursue their applications and maintained that, notwithstanding their resettlement in third countries, the Court should still examine their complaints on the merits. However, given that they no longer faced forced return to Iran, the Court found that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and decided that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.260 2.1.21 Costs and Fees The Court does not require applicants to pay any fees at any stage of the Convention proceedings. If an applicant is successful with his or her application and the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention, the Court may order the respondent State to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant in connection with the examination of his or her Convention complaints, pursuant to Article 41 of the Convention, including lawyer’s fees, translation and postage costs, and costs for 258 See Ohlen v. Denmark, no. 63214/00, 24 February 2005, § 26. 259 See e.g. Sokratian v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 41/03, 8 September 2005. 260 See e.g. M.T. v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46765/99, 30 May 2002; A.E. v. Turkey (dec.), no. 45279/99, 30 May 2002; A. Sh. v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41396/98, 28 May 2002. 94