FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21771/11
K.A.
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 6 April 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant is an Iranian national who was born in 1965. He was 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 J. Sjöstrand, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) and his involvement had allegedly come to the attention of the Iranian authorities. He claimed that, after having fled to Iraq in 2004, a criminal case had been opened against him in Iran which could result in 20 years’ imprisonment as well as mutilation.
On 5 February 2009 the applicant arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum. His application was rejected by the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) on 6 July 2009 and by the Migration Court (Migrations-domstolen) on 1 June 2010. They found that he had not had a leading role in the KDPI and that there was no indication of the Iranian authorities being particularly interested in him. Further, no evidence of there being a criminal case against him had been presented. On 15 October 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal.
The applicant subsequently claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order. He stated that his sur place activities in Sweden – which had been mentioned already in his appeal in the initial asylum proceedings – had since escalated and now included the running of internet blogs and a website as well as participation in other KDPI activities.
By decisions of 26 November and 28 December 2010, respectively, the Migration Board and the Migration Court dismissed the petition, finding that no new circumstances which could constitute an impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order had been presented. On 18 January 2011 the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.
By a decision of 27 September 2012, following the communication of the present application, the Migration Board granted the applicant refugee status and a permanent residence permit in Sweden. The Board took into account the applicant’s significant political activities for the KDPI in Sweden. Against the background of increased repression against political dissidents in Iran, the Board considered that he would risk persecution upon return. In so doing, it had regard to the Court’s judgment in S.F. and Others v. Sweden (no. 52077/10, 15 May 2012).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that his deportation to Iran would involve a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 3 October 2012 the Government invited the Court to strike out the case and discontinue the application of Rule 39 since the applicant no longer faced a risk of being deported to Iran. On 2 November 2012 the applicant objected to this, arguing that the residence permit now granted did not resolve his original complaint, that his asylum application had been rejected as a result of an incorrect and prejudicial assessment of his political activities for the KDPI.
The Court notes that the applicant has been granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden and, consequently, will not be deported 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