THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 62222/15
S.B. and Others
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 December 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Dmitry Dedov, President,
Helena Jäderblom,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 December 2015,
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 applicants are a family of four Afghan nationals who were born in 1987, 1989, 2011 and 2013, respectively. They are currently in Sweden. The President granted the applicants’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). They were represented before the Court by Mr. M. Nyman, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
2. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr A. Rönquist, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicants, whose asylum requests were not taken up for examination in Sweden, complained that their transfer from Sweden to Hungary under the “Dublin Regulation” (Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national) would be in violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention.
4. On 21 December 2015, the duty judge of the Court decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, to indicate to the Swedish Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to transfer the applicants to Hungary until further notice.
5. After the Government had been given notice of the application under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the applicants informed the Court on 9 May 2016 that they wanted to withdraw the application since they had been informed by the Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket) that the time-limit for transferring them to Hungary had expired and that Sweden was responsible for handling their asylum applications. Consequently there was no longer any risk that they would be sent back to Hungary. They therefore requested that their application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention since the matter had been resolved.
6. A few days later, on 13 May 2016, the applicants informed the Court that, since the Court had decided to communicate the case with the Swedish Government and with regard to the question to the parties, they were prepared to pursue their application should the Court consider that there were reasons to consider the case despite the fact that there was no longer any risk that they would be transferred to Hungary.
7. On 13 May 2016 the Government were informed by the Court of the applicants’ latest submission.
THE LAW
8. The applicants complained that their transfer to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation would be contrary to Article 3, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
9. The Court notes that the applicants no longer risk being transferred to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation as the time-limit for such transfer has expired and that their applications for asylum will be dealt with in Sweden. In view of this, in their first letter to the Court of 9 May 2016, the applicants expressed their wish to withdraw their application. In their second letter four days later, they did not revert on their request but stated that they left it to the Court to decide whether it would be appropriate to pursue the application.
10. The Court finds that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, reiterating its established case-law according to which, in cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant no longer risks being expelled from that State, it considers the case to have been resolved and strikes it out of its list of cases, whether or not the applicant agrees (see M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, § 32, 8 April 2015). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court has found no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application.
11. Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list of cases and, consequently, 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 12 January 2017.
Fatoş AracıDmitry Dedov
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy