FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 17865/09 V.G. against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section) , sitting on 7 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Mark Villiger , President, Elisabet Fura , Ganna Yudkivska , judges, and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar .

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2009 ,

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 decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant ,

Having deliberated , decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant , Mr V.G. , is an U zbek national who was born in 1980 and is currently in Sweden . He is represented before the Court by Ms M Ivicz , a lawyer practising in Stockholm . The Swedish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent , Mrs G Isaksson , of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs .

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

In February 2006 the applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden . Before the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) , he submitted essentially that he risked being punished upon return to Uzbekistan due to to having written articles critical of the Uzbek regime on the Internet.

On 31 October 2006 the Migration Board rejected the application.

On appeal , in a judgment of 26 March 2007 , the Migration Court ( Migrationsdomstolen ) upheld the Migration Board ’ s decision .

Upon further appeal , the Migration Court of Appeal ( Migrations- överdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal on 17 September 2007. As this decision was final , the deportation order gained legal force.

The applicant subsequently requested a reopening of his case and added , inter alia , that he had joined an oppositional Uzbek political party in 2007 and that he had participated in its activities in Sweden . His request was , however , rejected by the Migration Board on 6 December 2007.

On appeal, on 4 March 2008 , the Migration Court upheld the Migration Board ’ s decision.

The applicant subsequently again requested the Migration Board to re-consider his case. On 1 April 2009 the Board rejected the request.

On 2 April 2009 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Migration Court .

On 3 April 2009 the applicant lodged the present application and requested the Court to indicate to the Swedish Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court a suspension of his deportation to Uzbekistan , which was scheduled to take place on 6 April 2009. On 6 April 2009 the Court decided to apply Rule 39.

In a judgement of 2 February 2010 , the Migration Court upheld the Migration Board ’ s decision.

On 30 April 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal refused to leave appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that , if he were to be deported to Uzbekistan , he would risk being killed or arrested and ill-treated due to his political activities in an opposition party and for having published articles critical of the Uzbek regime on the Internet.

THE LAW

On 9 September 2011 the Government informed the Court that the deportation order against the applicant in Sweden would become statute ‑ barred on 17 September 2011 and that the order would thus no longer be enforceable after that date. They also stated that the applicant could subsequently apply for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden anew and that such an application would entail a full ordinary examination by the Swedish migration authorities on the merits of the case. Thus , in case of a negative decision by the Migration Board , the applicant would be able to appeal to the Migration Court and further to the Migration Court of Appeal. Having regard to the above , the Government requested the Court to declare the application inadmissible.

On 21 October 2011 the applicant submitted that he did not dispute the information provided by the Government. However , he contested the Government ’ s argument that the application should be declared inadmissible , since he considered it to be unlikely that the Swedish migration authorities would grant him asylum or a residence permit.

The Court notes that the applicant no longer risks deportation from Sweden and that , upon a new application for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden , he will be granted a full ordinary examination on the merits of the case. In these circumstances , and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (c ) of the Convention , t he Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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.

Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger Deputy Registrar President