Interim measures granted and State party response Request not acceded to by the State party who claimed to have received the Committee’s request after expulsion.4 Remedy recommended Measures to be taken Due date for State party response 5 March 2000 Date of reply Latest reply on 1 September 2005 State party response On 8 January 2001, the State party had provided follow-up information, in which it stated that, although the Administrative Court of Pau had found the informal decision to directly hand over the complainant from the French to the Spanish police to be unlawful, the decision to deport him was lawful. The State party adds that this ruling, which is currently being appealed, is not typical of the jurisprudence on the subject. It also submits that since 30 June 2000, a new administrative procedure allowing for a suspensive summary judgement suspending a decision, including deportation decisions, has been instituted. The conditions that need to be proven for a suspension of such a decision are more flexible than the previous conditions, and are proof that the urgency of the situation justifies such a suspension and that there is a serious doubt on the legality of the decision. Thus, there is no longer any necessity to prove that the consequences of the decision would be difficult to repair. On 1 September 2005, and pursuant to the Committee’s request of 7 June 2005 on follow-up measures taken, the State party reiterates the information previously provided on the changes in the law since 30 June 2000, and informs the Committee that in a decision of 23 July 2002, the Administrative Court of Bordeaux overturned the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of Pau of 4 February 1999. 4 No comment was made in the decision itself. The question was raised by the Committee with the State party during the consideration of the State party’s third periodic report at the thirty-fifth session. 95