THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 75348/16 C.A. and P.A. against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 September 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 8 December 2016,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Ms C.A. and Ms P.A., are Nigerian nationals who were born in 1988 and 2010 respectively. The President of the Section granted the applicants ’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). They were represented before the Court by Ms R. Nordström, a lawyer practising in Uppsala.

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

The applicants, whose asylum requests were not taken up for examination in Sweden, complained that their transfer from Sweden to Italy under the Dublin Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013) would be in violation of their rights under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

On 9 December 2016 the duty judge of the Court decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of 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 to suspend temporarily the transfer of the applicants to Italy. Simultaneously, the application was communicated to the Government.

On 21 December 2016 the duty judge of the Court decided to prolong the above-mentioned interim measure until further notice.

By a letter of 31 May 2017, the Government informed the Court that the time-limit for the transfer of the applicants according to the Dublin Regulation had expired on 26 April 2017. Accordingly, the Migration Agency had decided that the applicants ’ asylum applications would be examined in Sweden and, consequently, the applicants were no longer subject to transfer to Italy. In view of this, the Government considered that the application should 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. If the Court were to decide not to strike the case from its list of cases, the Government considered that the application should be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention since the applicants could no longer be considered victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Alternatively, since the applicants ’ requests for asylum were to be examined on the merits by all the relevant authorities, the Government submitted that the present application should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

In reply to the Government ’ s request, on 24 June 2017 the applicants opposed their case being struck out of the list or being declared inadmissible and wished to maintain it. While they confirmed that they had been granted an examination of their case by the Migration Agency, they submitted that the threat of enforcement had a deteriorating effect on their health. They considered that the domestic authorities had failed in their positive obligation under Article 4 of the Convention to protect them as victims of human trafficking. The applicants also submitted that it was justified to continue the examination of the case as it was not certain that they would be granted leave to remain in Sweden.

THE LAW

The applicants complained that their transfer from Sweden to Italy would be contrary to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicants no longer risk being transferred to Italy under the Dublin Regulation as the time-limit for such transfer has expired and that their applications for asylum will receive a full examination on the merits by the Migration Agency. If the Agency ’ s decision goes against the applicants they may appeal to the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. Since such appeals generally have suspensive effect, the applicants would not be expelled while the proceedings are pending. The Court further observes that, should the applicants ’ request for asylum in Sweden be rejected by all domestic instances, they may lodge a new application with the Court.

In these circumstances, 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 from 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.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list of cases 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 5 October 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Branko Lubarda              Deputy Registrar President