SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17185/04
by Abdelnasser Saleh Moussa SHLOUN
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 April 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Abdelnasser Saleh Moussa Shloun, is a stateless Palestinian who was born in 1965 and lives in Gävle. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. de Geer, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is married to a Swedish citizen since 1999. They have two children together who are also Swedish citizens. During the years 1984 to 1988, he was imprisoned in Israel due to his participation in demonstrations. In 1989 he was involved in the resistance against the Israeli occupation and sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment for having purportedly killed a policeman. He claimed that he had confessed to the crime under torture, and that he was tortured during his subsequent imprisonment. In 1994 he was released as a result of the Oslo Agreements. After his release he was employed by the Palestinian security service. His work primarily consisted in collecting money for charity. The veracity of the circumstances invoked was supported by written statements from the Palestinian Prisoners Club, the Mandela Institute and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. In Sweden, where he arrived in 1999, the applicant was very active in the Swedish-Palestinian association in Gävle. He had fled Palestine, not due to problems there, but because of his wife living in Sweden.
In March 2000 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) granted the applicant a temporary residence permit. The permit was renewed and then expired. On 15 December 2003, the Swedish security police recommended that the application for yet another renewal be rejected. The applicant was not given full access to the decision of the security police or to the facts on which the decision was based. It followed from the parts of the decision which were actually disclosed that he was very committed to fighting for the Palestinian cause, but only by peaceful means. The applicant claimed that the security police considered him a security risk vis-à-vis Israeli interests. The security police, who had co-operated with its Israeli counter-part, had been accusing him of acts which he had not committed. This was the principal reason preventing him from returning to his home country. The applicant claimed that the fact that he would be expelled due to security reasons was reason enough for him to be imprisoned and subjected to torture upon return.
On 19 March 2004 the Migration Board referred the application for a renewed residence permit to the Government. The security police once again recommended that it be rejected.
On 7 May 2004 the applicant lodged the present complaint and, on 19 May 2004, the President of the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 31 August 2004 the application of Rule 39 was discontinued.
On 3 June 2004 the applicant received a threat to his life by a group of people whom he perceived as being Israeli agents. He applied for asylum in Sweden.
On 21 December 2004 the Migration Board referred the matter to the Government. On 18 April 2005 the security police again recommended that the application be rejected.
On 31 May 2005, upon the applicant’s request, the President of the Chamber applied Rule 39 until further notice.
On 17 November 2005 the Government granted the applicant a one-year residence permit, but rejected his application for asylum. The Government shared the view that the applicant was a security risk. Nevertheless, the Government found that his fear of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, upon return to the Palestinian territories or to Israel, as a consequence of his expulsion from Sweden was well-founded. The treatment he risked was, however, not significant enough for him to be considered a refugee.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that if deported to Israel or to the Palestinian territories, he risked being subjected to torture.
THE LAW
On 17 November 2005 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in Sweden. By a letter of 2 December 2005, he expressed the wish to withdraw the application, as the matter had been resolved. On 15 December 2005 the respondent Government submitted, for the same reason, that the case should be struck out in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
In light of the above circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that the matter has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b). In addition, it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy