THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 61559/16 A.A. and Others against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 November 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2016,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants are a family from Ghazni, Afghanistan, consisting of a mother (A.A., born in 1955) and her four adult daughters (born in 1981, 1982, 1988 and 1989, respectively). The duty judge of the Court granted the applicants ’ request for their identity not to b e disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr L. Edman, a lawyer practising in Malmö.

The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Fabian, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs .

The applicants, whose asylum requests in Sweden had been finally rejected by the migration authorities and courts, complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that, if they were to be deported to Afghanistan where they lack a male network, they would risk being killed or face treatment in contravention of Article 3.

On 8 November 2016 the duty judge decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicants to Afghanistan until further notice.

After the Government had been given notice of the application under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, and they had submitted their observations on the admissibility of the case, the Government informed the Court that the deportation orders against the applicants had become statute ‑ barred on 22 February 2017 and, consequently, were no longer enforceable. Furthermore, the applicants would be granted a full examination on the merits of the case upon submitting new applications for asylum.

By a letter of 5 April 2017 the applicants ’ representative informed the Court that the applicants had submitted new applications for asylum. Nevertheless, the applicants wished to maintain their application before the Court and argued that the wrongful deportation orders had caused them suffering, inter alia, because they had resulted in the loss of rights to social benefits.

THE LAW

The applicants complained that their deportation from Sweden to Afghanistan would be contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicants no longer risk deportation from Sweden. Their new applications for asylum and residence permits in Sweden will receive full ordinary examination on the merits by the Migration Agency ( Migrationsverket ). If the Agency ’ s decisions are negative for the applicants, they may appeal against them to the Migration Court ( Migrationsdomstolen ) and the Migration Court of Appeal ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ). Since such appeals generally have suspensive effect, the applicants will not be deported while the proceedings are pending. The Court further observes that, should the applicants ’ requests for asylum in Sweden be rejected by all domestic instances, they may lodge a new application with the Court.

In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the matter has been resolved, reiterating its established case-law according to which, in cases concerning the deportation of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant no longer risks being deported from that State, it considers the case to have been resolved and strikes it out of its list of cases (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 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 7 December 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Branko Lubarda              Deputy Registrar President