THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38233/09
by Aleksander ILJAZOVIC and Others
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 July 2009,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Aleksander, Stefan, Marija and Filip Iljazovic, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1995, 1997, 2003 and 2003 respectively and are currently in Sweden. They are represented before the Court by Ms G. von Wachenfeldt, a lawyer practising in Gävle, who is also their guardian ad litem. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr B. Sjöberg, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 December 2006 the applicants arrived in Sweden with their parents and they applied for asylum and residence permits. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) the family stated that they were Roma, for which reason they had been subjected to ethnic persecution by individuals for several years. They had reported the persecution to the police who had refused to help them.
On 3 August 2007 the Migration Board rejected the requests. It observed that the threats and harassment to which the family had been subjected were criminal acts committed by individuals and, consequently, were to be dealt with by Serbian authorities. The Board concluded that the family had failed to show that they were at risk of being persecuted or were otherwise in need of protection in Sweden.
The family appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining their claims and adding that the police had refused to make a written report of the father’s complaints but had, instead, mocked him.
On 16 June 2008 the Migration Court rejected the family’s appeal. It found that, irrespective of the family’s credibility, if they had been exposed to criminal acts in Serbia then this should be dealt with by the national authorities. In this respect, it considered that the Serbian authorities, generally speaking, did not lack the will or ability to protect their inhabitants. Thus, the court found that the family were not in need of protection in Sweden and therefore rejected the appeal. The applicants did not appeal against this judgment and consequently it gained legal force.
In the meantime, on 21 January 2008, their father was murdered in their mother’s home while they were at home. Their mother and her new partner were arrested and the children were placed in a temporary foster home. However, on 19 February 2008, with their mother’s approval, the children were moved to the home of their father’s cousin and his family where they have remained since.
In October 2008, the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) of Lower Norrland convicted the applicants’ mother of complicity to murder (medhjälp till mord) and sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment.
The applicants then requested the Migration Board to reconsider their case, having regard to the fact that they were now living with their father’s cousin and his family while their mother was in prison and that they visited their mother regularly once a month and also spoke on the telephone between visits. They further claimed that they had no relatives in Serbia who could take care of them.
On 3 February 2009 the Migration Board rejected the application. It considered that it did not appear from the material in the case that the applicants would not be properly received in their home country or that their need for contact with their mother could not be met if they were deported.
The applicants subsequently renewed their request for reconsideration by the Migration Board but this request was also refused.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that, if deported to Serbia, there would be no one to take care of them as the Serbian authorities would not provide them with suitable care and as they had no connection to the country. They further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that deportation would separate them from their mother for a very long time, in violation of their right to family life.
THE LAW
By letter of 16 October 2009 the Government informed the Court that, on 13 October 2009, the Migration Board had granted the applicants permanent residence permits in Sweden. Hence the Government considered that the matter had been resolved and invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention.
The applicants did not object to the case being struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
The Court notes that the applicants no longer risk deportation from Sweden and that they do not object to the case being discontinued before the Court. 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list, and to 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy