FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 26112/13 V.K. against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 31 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou , President, Ledi Bianku , Faris Vehabović , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 2013 ,

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 applicant, Mr V.K. , is a Sri-Lankan national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Oulu . The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Ms Marjaana Laine , a lawyer at the Refugee Advice Centre in Helsinki .

2 . The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. The applicant is a 3 5- year-old single ma n from a small village in northern Sri Lanka. He is Tamil by ethnic origin and a Hindu by religion. He was a teacher of Tamil language and history in several schools for Tamil children . The applicant ha d three brothers : one re ceived refugee status years ago in Canada, one was forcibly recruited by the LTTE (t he Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ) and later escaped to India , and one, the oldest brother, was claimed to be a high - profile fighter in the LTTE who was killed in battle . The applicant was never a member of the LTTE himself.

5. From the summer of 2008 onwards, t he applicant was living in a sort of refugee camp where on 6 March 2009 his left cheek and mouth were injured by a bullet apparently fired by the Sri Lankan army. He returned to his village in early 2010 where he claimed he was frequently harassed and kept under surveillance by Sri Lankan officials. In January 2011 the applicant was arrested and allegedly ill-treated by the Sri Lankan intelligence service. He claimed that they beat him on the head and walked over his bare feet with shoes. He was questioned about his connections with the LTTE and about his brother as , he claimed, the authorities had not found his brother ’ s body and suspected that he was still alive. The scars on the applicant ’ s face also aroused suspicion.

6. O n 19 March 2011 t he applicant received a letter in Sinhala language asking him to report to the CID ( Criminal Investigation Department) . On 21 March 2011 he went to the CID office , situated in the old LTTE quarters in Mallavi . He was questioned about his wound and it was alleged that he had received the injury while fighting illegally against the government. H e was allegedly beaten again. On 17 May 2011 the applicant received another similar letter, requiring him to report again to the CID office with two photographs. This time he did not go but decided to flee instead. He told people in his village that he wa s going to receive dental treatment for his injury in Malaysia. At Colombo airport, he told the authorities that he was going to a temple in Malaysia and that he was coming back in five days. He left the country with his own passport.

7. The applicant stayed for a while in Malaysia . H e then contacted a smuggler, received a false Malaysian passport and headed through C hina and Russia towards France, where a friend of his was living. He was travelling by train from Russia to Finland when on 28 July 2011 he was stopped by a Finnish Border Guard and questioned, as his false passport had been detected.

8. On 30 July 2011 the applicant sought asylum in Finland.

9. On 6 October 2011 the Finnish Immigration Service ( Maahan - muuttovirasto, Migrationsverket ) rejected his application and decided to expel him to Sri Lanka. In its decision the Immigration Service considered that , as the applicant had not been a member or supporter of the LTTE, he would not be of special interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. The fact that his brother had been a fighter killed in battle and that the officials might have suspected that the applicant had been wounded in battle were not considered very significant risk factors. On the basis of country reports , the Immigration Service considered that the Sri Lankan authorities were only concerned about high pro file LTTE members. It furthermore considered that there were di screpancies in the applicant ’ s story . Moreover, the credibili ty of his asylum application was reduced by the fact that he was travelling with a false passport – but claimed to have left Sri Lanka with his own passport – and that he was going to France to apply for asylum but was not plannin g to apply for asylum in the first safe country he reached.

10. By letter dated 18 November 2011, t he applicant appealed to the Administrative Court ( hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting, inter alia , that an oral hearing be held . He argued that the discrepancies pointed out by the Immigration Service were caused by poor video translation and misunderstandings.

11. On 31 August 2012 t he Admini strative Court rejected both the a ppeal and the request for an oral hearing. The court considered that the applicant had not been politically or socially active in his country of origin . H e had not been a member of the LTTE and therefore the Sri Lankan authorities or paramilitary groups would not be interested in him.

12. By letter dated 18 September 2012 t he applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting, inter alia , a stay on the execution of the expulsion order for the dur ation of the proceedings . No stay on the execution of the expulsion order was granted by the Supreme Administrative Court.

13. On 23 April 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

14. On 24 February 2014 the applicant applied for asylum for the second time on the same grounds as earlier.

15. On 17 December 2014 the Immigration Service granted the applicant refugee status and a continuous residence permit for a period of four years. He was also granted an unlimited work permit as well as an opportunity to apply for refugee status travel documentation through a separate procedure.

COMPLAINTS

16. The applicant complain ed under Article 3 of the Convention that he would be subjected to inhuman treatment if expelled to Sri Lanka . He stated that he feared persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities due to his assumed affiliation with the LTTE.

17. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he should have had an effective remedy, that wa s, he should have been allowed to stay in Finland until a final decision was given in his case. He also complained that the domestic courts had not considered properly the country information and the risk factors in his case.

THE LAW

18 . The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that his removal to Sri Lanka would subject him to a risk of inhuman treatment and contended that he should have been able to stay in Finland until a final decision had been reached in his case.

19 . Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

20 . Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

21 . On 26 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that, on 17 December 2014, the Finnish Immigration Service had granted the applicant refugee status and a residence permit valid for a continuous period of four years. Consequently, the Government suggested that the circumstances allowed the Court to reach the conclusion that the matter had been resolved, thereby justifying the discontinuation of the examination of the application. The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases and to lift the interim measure indicated on 19 April 2013.

22 . The applicant argued that the decision of the Immigration Service of 17 December 2014 showed that the earlier final and enforceable decisions by the Finnish authorities to expel the applicant to Sri Lanka had been incorrect and would have meant a real risk of violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He wished that the Court continue d the examination of his application because the respect of non re foulement so required. He argued that his application should not be struck out of the list of cases until the Government gave a public declaration clearly acknowledging a real risk of violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that this risk had not been recognized during the first set of asylum proceedings.

23 . Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

24 . The Court notes that the domestic proceedings have ended and that the applicant has been granted refugee status as well as a residence permit valid for a continuous period of four years. He is thus no longer subject to an expulsion order. Moreover, the Court observes that the applicant has not put forward any arguments which could be construed as indicating his dissatisfaction that all issues giving rise to his application have not been adequately re dressed by the domestic authorities . There is no risk of any imminent re foulement as the applicant has been granted refugee status and a continuous residence permit for a period of four years in Finland.

25 . In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that the matter giving rise to this application against Finland under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention can now be considered to be “resolved” (see F.S. and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 57264/09, 13 December 2011). Therefore, 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 present application.

26 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to strike the case out of the list of cases.

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 23 April 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar President