THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26834/05
by Evelyn AGBOTAIN
and
Annabella OSAKPOLOR OMOREGBEE ELEMA
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Evelyn Agbotain (the first applicant), born in 1974, is mother to Annabella Osakpolor Omoregbee Elema (the second applicant), born in September 2003. They are both Nigerian nationals from the Delta State. They are represented before the Court by Mrs Linda Bjornsdotter, a lawyer practising in Markaryd. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Inger Kalmerborn, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant originates from Agbor in the Delta State. At the beginning of July 2003 she entered Sweden, where her daughter, the second applicant, was born on 17 September 2003.
The applicants applied for asylum, refugee status and a residence permit and submitted in support thereof that upon return to Nigeria the first applicant would risk being killed by her (ex-)husband and the second applicant would have to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM). Their request was refused on 2 March 2004 by the Migration Board (Migrationsverket), which found that the applicants’ troubles were of a private nature and therefore could be dealt with by the Nigerian authorities. It noted, among other things, that several States within Nigeria had passed laws prohibiting FGM and that the Nigerian Government have condemned its practice.
The applicants appealed against the decision to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden) and maintained that the practice of FGM was deeply rooted in Nigeria and persisted despite the various laws against it. By decision of 14 April 2005, the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the appeal, sharing the Migration Board’s reasoning and conclusions in full.
On 4 May 2006 the Migration Board, examining the applicants’ cases on its own initiative in accordance with a temporary provision of the Aliens Act, found that the applicants could not be granted residence permits under the temporary legislation.
On 7 June 2006 the applicants filed an application for an order establishing that there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order and on 8 December 2006 the Migration Board granted the applicants permanent residence permits in Sweden (in accordance with chapter 12, section 18 of the 2005 Aliens Act).
COMPLAINT
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the decisions to deport them to Nigeria.
THE LAW
The applicants were granted permanent residence permits in Sweden on 8 December 2006. Consequently, on 12 December 2006 the respondent Government submitted that the matter before the Court had been resolved and that the case should be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The applicants have not objected thereto.
In light of the above circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application and that the matter has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b). Moreover, it is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined by the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require a continuation of the case by virtue of Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 39 of the Rules of Court should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy