FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21304/13
E.L.
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Helena Jäderblom,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr E.L., is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Gothenburg.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Fabian, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 April 2012 the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Saltvik Prison (Kriminalvården, Anstalten Saltvik – hereafter “the Prison”) rejected the applicant’s request for visiting rights for E.W. The Prison also rejected the applicant’s request for the right to have telephone conversations with her, inter alia, on the grounds that it could jeopardise security, obstruct the applicant’s reintegration into society or harm E.W.
E.W. and the applicant requested a re-examination of the matter, stating that they were a couple and had known each other for five years. Moreover, while the applicant had been in pre-trial detention, they had been permitted to see and to call each other approximately 60 times, without any problems.
On 16 May 2012 the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Northern Region (Kriminalvården, Region Nord – hereafter “the Service”) decided not to change the Prison’s decision. The Service found that visits by E.W. or telephone conversations between her and the applicant could jeopardise security, obstruct the applicant’s reintegration into society or harm the applicant or somebody else. In its view, these risks could not be eliminated by controlled visits or monitored telephone conversations.
The applicant appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court (förvaltningsrätten) in Härnösand, maintaining his claims and adding that he and E.W. intended to marry as soon as possible and that her visits would facilitate his reintegration into society. Moreover, during his time in prison, he had behaved in an exemplary manner.
On 18 October 2012 the County Administrative Court upheld the Service’s decision in full.
Upon further appeal, both the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Sundsvall and the Supreme Administrative Court (Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) refused leave to appeal, the latter on 16 January 2013.
The applicant has been conditionally released from prison.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the Swedish authorities’ decisions to deprive him of the possibility to have visits by, or telephone conversations with, his partner were completely disproportionate and in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 9 July 2014 the applicant informed the Court that, after careful consideration, he wished to withdraw the application since, in view of the Government’s observations and the Court’s recent case-law (see, in particular, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, §§ 39-53, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013), he found it likely that his application would be declared inadmissible since he had not lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged violation of the Convention with the Chancellor of Justice or the ordinary courts.
The Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his case. It further observes that, if the applicant’s claim for compensation for the alleged violation of the Convention was to be rejected by the Chancellor of Justice or the ordinary courts, he would be able to lodge a new application with the Court. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court considers 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy