FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 67478/11
by F.H. and P.G.
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 7 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Ganna Yudkivska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 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 decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, born in 1970 and 1993 respectively, are mother and daughter originating from Tehran, Iran. They were represented before the Court by Mr. L Gagnér, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Hellner, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants applied for asylum in April 2009, referring mainly to the first applicant’s Christian faith and the consequences this would entail.
On 1 June 2010 and 11 March 2011, respectively, the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) and the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) rejected the applicants’ request.
Before the Court, the applicants added that the first applicant had written an Internet blog in Sweden in which she had strongly criticised Islam and the Iranian government. She had also been interviewed about her Christian faith by a Swedish TV channel. The interview had been published on the Internet.
On 18 November 2011 the Court applied Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and communicated the case to the Swedish Government.
In their observations, the Government informed the Court that, on 11 November 2011, the Migration Board had granted the applicants permanent residence permits in Sweden. The Board considered that it could not be ruled out that the Iranian authorities were aware, or would become aware, of the content of the first applicant’s blog.
By a letter of 22 November 2011, the applicants consequently expressed the wish to withdraw the application.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained that their deportation to Iran would have violated their rights under Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court notes that, on 11 November 2011, the applicants were granted permanent residence permits in Sweden and that they subsequently expressed the wish to withdraw the present application.
Consequently, there is reason to strike the application out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, as the applicants do not intend to pursue their application, and Article 37 § 1 (b), as the matter has been resolved. Further, no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols require the Court to continue its examination of the case in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine.
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