THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33716/09
by Musa YUSUF
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 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 applicant, Mr Musa Yusuf, is a Somali national who was born in 1970 and is currently in Sweden. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Jönsson, a lawyer practising in Eskilstuna. 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 24 July 2007 the applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) he submitted, essentially, that he belonged to one of the majority clans in Mogadishu. Since he had refused to take part in the conflict together with his clan, they had threatened him. In the middle of 2006 his home had been hit by a grenade which had killed his family. Moreover, in June 2007, armed men had robbed his store and beaten him. He was certain that he would be killed if sent back to Somalia.
On 30 June 2008 the Migration Board rejected the request. It observed that the situation in parts of the country, in particular in Mogadishu, was of a serious nature and amounted to a “severe conflict” (svåra motsättningar). This implied that a personal assessment of the individual circumstances in the case had to be made. As concerned the applicant, the Board noted that he belonged to one of the majority clans and that there were no indications that persons from this clan who had not participated in the conflict were targets in the conflict. In its view, the applicant had not substantiated that he would face a personal risk of persecution or ill-treatment if returned to his home country. Since the Board found no other grounds on which to grant the applicant leave to remain in Sweden, his application was rejected.
The applicant appealed to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen), maintaining his claims and adding that, if returned, he would be forced by his clan to participate in the conflict in one of the militias. If he refused, which he would, he would be killed by his clan.
On 26 February 2009, after having held an oral hearing, the Migration Court upheld the Board’s decision in full.
Upon further appeal, the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal on 22 April 2009.
In May 2009 the applicant requested the Migration Board to grant him a new examination of his case since the situation in Somalia had deteriorated. However, on 12 June 2009, the Migration Board refused to reconsider the case or stay the deportation as it found that the applicant had invoked no new circumstances and that there were no impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that, if he were deported from Sweden to Somalia, he would be persecuted and killed because he had refused to participate in the conflict with his clan. This, in combination with the very serious situation in the country, would put him at very real and personal risk.
THE LAW
By letter of 16 December 2009 the Government informed the Court that, on 15 December 2009, the Migration Board had granted the applicant a permanent residence permit 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 applicant did not object to the case being struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
The Court notes that the applicant no longer risks deportation from Sweden and that he does 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