THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50586/18
Henry OBINNA IBE
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 January 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 October 2018,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Henry Obinna Ibe, is a Nigerian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Stockholm. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Massarsch, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
2. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Fabian, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about ill‑treatment if expelled to Nigeria as he would have no access to adequate medical care there. He submitted that he suffered from chronic kidney failure and needed dialysis three times a week for the rest of his life. Without dialysis or a kidney transplant he would die within two weeks. In Nigeria persons with chronic kidney diseases needed to pay for dialysis. This care was so expensive that most Nigerians were unable to afford it.
4. After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court on 18 June 2019 that the Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) had initiated a case regarding whether there were impediments to enforcement of the expulsion order according to Chapter 12, section 18 of the Swedish Alien’s Act in order to obtain updated country of origin information regarding the availability of adequate health care for the applicant in his country of origin. On 28 August 2019 the Government informed the Court that on 26 July 2019 the Migration Agency had decided to grant the applicant a temporary residence and work permit in Sweden which would be valid for one year, that was, until 26 July 2020. The Government thus concluded that the matter had been resolved at the domestic level with the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (b) of the Convention. As there were no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which required the continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine), the Government requested the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
5. On 10 October 2019 the applicant opposed the striking out of his case and insisted on the examination of the case. He argued that the Migration Agency had not made a proper assessment in his case since the Agency had not referred to the Court’s case-law in its decision. The case should have been examined under Article 3 of the Convention and the relevant Court’s case-law. As the decision of the Migration Agency to grant a residence permit could not be appealed against, also his right to an effective remedy was violated. A mere one year’s residence permit had caused the applicant great worry and uncertainty, which constituted as such cruel and inhuman treatment.
THE LAW
6. The Court notes that on 26 July 2019 the applicant was granted a temporary residence and work permit valid for a period of one year. He is thus no longer subject to any imminent expulsion. Moreover, the Court observes that the applicant has not put forward any arguments which could be construed as indicating that all issues giving rise to his present application have not been adequately addressed by the domestic authorities. If his medical situation were to remain the same after the expiry of the residence and work permit, the applicant has the possibility to invoke again, before the domestic authorities, any impediments to the enforcement of his expulsion order and, if need be, lodge another application with the Court.
7. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
8. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 February 2020.
Stephen PhillipsGeorgios A. Serghides
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy