FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60794/11
Ganna Petrovna CHYZHEVSKA
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
André Potocki,
Paul Lemmens, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2011,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Swedish Government and the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ganna Petrovna Chyzhevska, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1920 and lives in Järfälla. She was represented before the Court by Mr I. Vita, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Rönquist, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In June 2008 and July 2009, respectively, the applicant was granted a temporary visa for visiting her daughter, who had lived in Sweden since 1992. In January 2010 the applicant applied for a residence permit, submitting, inter alia, that she was 91 years old, suffered from various illnesses and had no social network in Ukraine.
On 27 September 2010 the Migration Board refused her application mainly because the applicant’s daughter had been living in Sweden for many years prior to the applicant’s request for reunion. Even though the circumstances of the case were compelling, the medical documents submitted did not support that the applicant’s health problems were of such exceptional severity that a residence permit could be granted.
On 31 March 2011 the Migration Court upheld the decision of the Migration Board and, in a decision of 15 June 2011, the Migration Court of Appeal refused to leave appeal.
Subsequently, the applicant twice applied for a review of her case, invoking her deteriorating health and submitting new medical certificates. These applications were rejected by the Migration Board on 26 August 2011 and 17 October 2011, respectively.
On 12 June 2012, following the communication of the present application, the Migration Board granted the applicant a permanent residence permit in Sweden. The Board had regard to a medical certificate dated 17 February 2012, which stated that the applicant’s poor health had further deteriorated and that her life would be at great risk if she were put on an airplane to be deported. In the Board’s view, this was new information which it had not previously considered. Thus, having regard to the serious risk to the applicant’s life that an enforcement of the deportation order would entail, it concluded that there were medical obstacles to the enforcement.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that an implementation of the deportation order to return her to Ukraine would be in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, due to her poor health and since she had no relatives or other social network in Ukraine.
THE LAW
On 15 June 2012 the Government informed the Court of the Migration Board’s decision of 12 June 2012 and invited the Court to strike out the application. In reply, on 12 July 2012, the applicant stated that she withdrew her case.
The Court notes that the applicant has been granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden and that she thus no longer faces a deportation to Ukraine. Moreover, she does not intend to pursue her case. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
Under these circumstances, the interim measure applied under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court also comes to an end.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy