FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 275/11 M.N. and Others against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič , President, Ann Power-Forde, Helena Jäderblom , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2010,

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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, a married couple and their two children, are stateless Palestinians from Lebanon who were born in 1974, 1979, 1997 and 2000 respectively. The President granted the applicants ’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). They were represented before the Court by Mr B. Cinthio , a lawyer practising in Malmö.

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

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

The applicants arrived in Sweden on 29 May 2006 and applied for asylum the following day. They submitted, inter alia , the following to the Swedish authorities. The first applicant is a member of the PFLP (The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). He was active in the organisation for 8-9 years until his children were born. However, he continued to go to PFLP meetings. Having been trained by the organisation to handle weapons, in 2005 or 2006 some leaders demanded of him that he should train youngsters to use weapons and also that he should smuggle weapons into the Badawi refugee camp where the family lived. He refused and was then put under pressure by members of the PFLP, accused of being a traitor and of co-operating with the Lebanese state. The family first hoped that the pressure and the threats would subside, but when a bomb exploded near to their home and another family who resisted joining the PFLP were killed they concluded that their lives would be at risk. They would not be able to move to another refugee camp, because the PFLP were present even to a greater extent there.

On 5 December 2007 the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the application and ordered the applicants ’ deportation. It took into account country information from the British Home Office, according to which a person could find safety in another camp or elsewhere in Lebanon where the specific extremist Palestinian group he feared did not have a significant presence. Protection would also be available from other Palestininan groups or the Lebanese authorities. It also noted that the first applicant had not been active in the organisation for ten years. Furthermore, he did not know whether the PFLP had reported him as a weapons smuggler and whether he was wanted by the authorities on such charges and the applicants had not submitted any leaflets or other documents showing that there had been threats, criminal proceedings or other repercussions for them. The Board therefore considered that their stories were vague, lacking in detail and, in some parts, contradictory.

By a judgment of 28 February 2008 the Migration Court ( Migrations- domstolen ) reversed the Board ’ s decision and granted the applicants permanent residence permits. The court found that their story was nuanced overall and did not appear to contain any particular exaggerations. Against the background of a rather miserable situation in the Palestinian refugee camps, with unemployment and criminal and political violence, the court was of the opinion that an accusation of treason was particularly dangerous. Having regard to the allegedly increased threats, the situation in the refugee camps and the nature of the PFLP organisation, the court considered that the applicants had a well-founded fear and that the Lebanese authorities would be unable to protect them against attacks. The presence of the PFLP in other camps excluded an internal flight alternative.

The Migration Board appealed and submitted, amongst other things, that first applicant was a member of an organisation which according to both the European Union and the United States was a terrorist organisation. Thus, there were strong reasons to refuse him a residence permit.

In reply, the first applicant denied active participation in the PFLP or involvement in any criminal acts; on the contrary, he had defied the organisation by refusing the demands in question.

On 8 June 2009 the Migration Court of Appeal ( Migrations- överdomstolen ) quashed the appealed judgment and confirmed the Migration Board ’ s decision. The court noted that the first applicant had been a member of the PFLP since the 1990s. While having stated before the Board that he had received weapons training and had taken part in PFLP meetings, he had claimed before the court that he had never been an active member. The court found this to be conflicting and an attempt to defuse his earlier statements. The court then had regard to the statement of the Council of the European Union of 26 January 2009, according to which restrictive measures should be applied in order to combat terrorism, and to the attached list of organisations, including the PFLP, which had committed terrorist acts. On the basis of the first applicant ’ s involvement in the PFLP, the court thus concluded that there were particularly strong reasons not to grant him a residence permit. As the other family members had not invoked any individual reasons, the court refused all applicants residence permits.

Subsequently, the applicants claimed that there were impediments to their deportation, relying basically on the same grounds as earlier presented. On 8 September and 14 October 2009, respectively, the Migration Board and the Migration Court found that the applicants had not presented any new circumstances that gave reason to re-examine their case or stop the deportation.

On 8 June 2013, four years after the deportation order acquired legal force, on 8 June 2009, the validity of that order expired, in accordance with Chapter 22, section 12 of the Aliens Act ( Utlänningslagen , 2005:716). The deportation order had thus become statute-barred and could not be enforced.

On 8 July 2013 the applicants submitted a new asylum application to the Migration Board. By a decision of 27 September 2013 the Board granted them permanent residence permits in Sweden. While the Board did not find that any new circumstances had been presented which would give reason to change its previous assessments, it noted that the children of the family, who were still under-age, had now spent more than seven years in Sweden and had acquired a strong connection to the country through their schools and friends. There was accordingly a risk that their psycho-social development would be harmed if they were returned to Lebanon. Having regard to the interests of the children, the Board found that the whole family were entitled to residence permits on the basis of particularly distressing circumstances, as set out in Chapter 5, section 6 of the Aliens Act.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that, due to the insecure situation for Palestinians, they would be at risk of being killed or injured through the indiscriminate use of political violence if they were returned to Lebanon.

THE LAW

In submissions of 3 April and 19 June 2013 the Government invited the Court to strike out the case and discontinue the application of Rule 39 since the deportation orders against the applicants had become statute-barred on 8 June 2013 and the applicants thus no longer faced a risk of being deported from Sweden. On 15 July 2013 the applicants objected to this, instead inviting the Court to adjourn its proceedings pending the outcome of the new asylum application lodged by them before the Migration Board. On 17 October 2013 the Government reiterated their request for a strike-out decision, now referring to the Migration Board ’ s decision of 27 September 2013.

The Court notes that the applicants have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden and, consequently, will not be deported to Lebanon.

The Court considers, in the above circumstances, that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). 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. Therefore, the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court comes to an end.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President