FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55044/10
J.H.K. and Others
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 June 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 September 2010,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, a married couple and their four children, are Iranian nationals who were born in 1963, 1966, 1990, 1991, 1994 and 2001 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Ms D. Abadi, Director of the Iranian Refugees’ Alliance Inc., Berkeley, California, USA.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms G. Isaksson, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant was a high-ranking member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) and he and his family suffered persecution from the authorities on account thereof. They fled to Turkey in 2002 where, despite being granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), they feared deportation.
In March 2008 the family arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum. The application was rejected by the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) on 1 April 2009 and by the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) on 21 December 2009. They noted that the first applicant’s political activities occurred many years earlier and considered it unlikely that the authorities’ interest in him remained. On 1 June 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal.
By decisions of 19 September and 5 October 2012 and 14 February 2013, following the communication of the present application to the respondent Government, the Migration Board granted five of the applicants refugee status and permanent residence permits in Sweden. The Board had regard to the first applicant’s extensive political activities for the KDPI in Sweden. Against the background of increased repression of political dissidents in Iran, not the least those of Kurdish origin, the Board considered that he – and, as a consequence, the other family members – would risk persecution upon return.
Moreover, the third applicant has been granted a residence permit in Finland on grounds of marriage.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that, on account of the political activities of the first applicant, he would be subjected to ill-treatment or be killed if he were to return to Iran and the other applicants would risk ill-treatment due to their family connection.
THE LAW
On 1 March 2013 the Government invited the Court to strike out the case and discontinue the application of Rule 39 since the applicants no longer faced a risk of being deported to Iran. On 25 March 2013 the applicants objected to this, arguing that the residence permits now granted them did not resolve their original complaints, that their asylum applications had been rejected as a result of an incorrect and prejudicial assessment of the first applicant’s political activities in Iran.
The Court notes that five of the applicants have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden. The one remaining applicant has been granted a residence permit in Finland on grounds of marriage. Consequently, none of them any longer faces a deportation to Iran.
The Court considers, in the above circumstances, that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). 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 and discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
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