SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44891/04
by Dmitrij Aleksandrevich MOSTACHJOV and Others[1]
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 December 2004,
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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Dmitrij Aleksandrevich Mostachjov, is a national of Belarus who was born in 1968. The second applicant, Mrs Tatjana Nikolajevna Mostachjova, his wife, is a Russian national who was also born in 1968. The third applicant, Mr Dimitrij (Dima) Dmitrijevich Mostachjov, their son, is a national of Belarus who was born in 1990. They were represented before the Court by Ms A. Enochsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants entered Sweden on 22 July 2003 and applied for asylum. They had been living in Russia where the first applicant had been working at a small consultancy firm. He was a member of the BNF, a Belarus opposition party, distributing propaganda and literature. Due to his political involvement, he had been asked to quit his job and, as he alleged, he had also received threats against all family members from Russian and Belarus officials. The family had been forced to move on more than one occasion due to continued threats and, in May 2003, the first applicant had gone to Belarus, hoping to solve the situation. However, there he had been arrested and beaten up by the police and had received further threats against himself and his family. Following his release from detention, he had been assaulted by two men, who had threatened to kill him if he continued with his activities. The second applicant had continued to receive threats in Russia. She and her son had left for Belarus in June 2003 where the whole family had contacted a human rights organisation which had advised them to leave the country.
On 17 November 2003 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected the applicants’ application for asylum. It considered, inter alia, that the first applicant had not held a prominent position within the BNF and that they had not exhausted the possibilities of getting protection in Russia, where they were unlikely to be persecuted.
The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlännings-nämnden). They maintained what they had previously stated and added, inter alia, that the mental health of the third applicant, the son, had deteriorated dramatically since the Migration Board’s decision. He had stopped communicating and eating and had become apathetic. He had tried to commit suicide in December 2003 and April 2004. He had been admitted to psychiatric care on more than one occasion and was continuously fed by tube. Also the second applicant had serious mental problems and had been admitted to compulsory psychiatric care between March and May 2004.
On 15 October 2004 the Appeals Board rejected the applicants’ appeal. It agreed with the Migration Board as to the political grounds and further found that the second and third applicants’ mental problems were not of such a serious nature that the family was entitled to residence permits on humanitarian grounds.
On 17 December 2004 the applicants lodged a new application for residence permits with the Aliens Appeals Board. They submitted medical certificates issued by chief physicians who stated that the second applicant had been diagnosed with depression and was in need of extensive care and that the third applicant was in a serious mental state and could not be deported from Sweden in the foreseeable future.
Following the Court’s indication of 20 December 2004, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to deport the applicants, the Migration Board, on the same day, stayed the enforcement of the deportation order concerning the applicants.
On 28 April 2005 the Aliens Appeals Board revoked the deportation order and granted the applicants permanent residence permits. The Board referred to the opinion of a specialist in psychiatry of 9 April 2005, according to whom the third applicant suffered from a devitalisation syndrome which showed no signs of improvement. Moreover, there was a risk of self-destructive acts and he was in need of more active psychiatric treatment. In conclusion, there were serious medical obstacles to his deportation. On the basis of this medical opinion, the Board found that it would go against the demands of humanity to enforce the deportation order.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained that their deportation from Sweden would involve a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 28 April 2005 the applicants were granted permanent residence permits in Sweden. On 3 May 2005 the respondent Government submitted therefore that the matter before the Court had been resolved and that the case should be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The applicants did not react to the Government’s submission.
Having regard to the grant of permanent residence permits to the applicants, the Court is satisfied that the matter has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. In addition, it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). The application should accordingly be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
[1] Rectified on 12 May 2006. The applicants’ names as well as the third applicant’s nationality were corrected and the word “as he alleged” were inserted on the fifth line in the third paragraph on page 2.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy