Z.K. v. SWEDEN
Doc ref: 7093/11 • ECHR ID: 001-123389
Document date: July 9, 2013
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 7093/11 Z.K. against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič , President, Ann Power-Forde , Helena Jäderblom , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Sec t ion Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2011,
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 applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant is a Syrian national, who was born in 1983. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Eriksson, residing in Östhammar , and by Ms M. Bexelius and Mr B. Johansson, lawyers practising in Stockholm.
The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms I. Kalmerborn and Ms G. Isaksson , of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant claims to be a stateless Kurd, belonging to the ajnabi group. He was arrested by the police in March 2004, May 2005, November 2007 and March 2008 and was held in detention for periods ranging from nine days to one and a half months. He was subjected to torture and accused of agitation as well as of tearing down a statue during demonstrations for the rights of Kurds in early 2004. Following a demonstration in Damascus in August 2008, the authorities again searched for him, but he managed to stay in hiding until he left the country in December 2008.
The applicant arrived in Sweden on 2 April 2009 and applied for asylum on 6 April 2009. His application was rejected by the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) on 5 March 2010 and by the Migration Court ( Migrationsdomstolen ) on 28 September 2010. They found that the applicant had failed to prove his identity, that he knew remarkably little of the ajnabis , that he had changed his story several times and that there was no evidence that he was wanted by the Syrian authorities. On 13 December 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal.
By a decision of 17 November 2012, following the communication of the present application, the Migration Board granted the applicant a temporary residence permit in Sweden until 17 November 2015. The Board referred to the escalating and extremely violent situation in Syria, which meant that there was a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for virtually anyone returning to the country.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that his deportation to Syria would involve a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 28 November 2012 and 3 June 2013, respectively, the Government and the applicant informed the Court of the Migration Board ’ s decision of 17 November 2012. The applicant expressed the wish to withdraw the present application and both parties invited the Court to strike it out.
The Court observes that the applicant has been granted a temporary residence permit in Sweden until 17 November 2015 and that, thus, he does not face a deportation to Syria for the foreseeable future.
The Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Moreover, the matter has been resolved, wit hin 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 and 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.
Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
