SVARCA proti Švédsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 547/05
by Beqir SVARCA and others
against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 January 2005,

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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Beqir Svarca, his wife Minire Svarca and their children Vlora, Nurije, Ardit, Haki and Ymer Svarca, are citizens of Serbia, who were born in 1964, 1969, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000, respectively. Their address is unknown. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekelöf, a lawyer practising in Växjö.

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

The applicants left a refugee camp in Kosovo in 1999 and arrived in Sweden, where they were given a temporary residence permit until May 2000. In their initial submissions before the Swedish authorities, the applicants relied on humanitarian grounds for asylum, stating that they had terrible memories from the war in Kosovo. The second applicant had been abducted with a group of other women by the Serbian military in 1999 and had been raped and tortured for ten days. It followed from a medical certificate dated 27 May 2003 that the second applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The children also needed continuous psychiatric care.

The first applicant had been an active member of the Democratic League of Kosovo and had been harassed by the police. He had joined the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) but had left it in January 1999, after which there had been an order to eliminate him. His life would be in danger upon return.

The applicants’ requests for asylum and residence permits were rejected by the Swedish authorities. The applicants were not deemed to be at serious risk if returned to Serbia.

On 2005 the applicants requested the Court to indicate to the Swedish Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the suspension of their deportation to Serbia. On 2005 the President of the Section decided to apply Rule 39 until further notice.

On 6 January 2006 the President of the Section adjourned the application at the request of the Government, following the enactment of a temporary amendment to the Swedish Aliens Act.

On 18 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that, on 9 March 2006, the Migration Board had granted the applicants permanent residence permits in view of the humanitarian aspects involved in the case. The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list.

On 18 April 2006 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wished to withdraw the case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that their state of health did not allow the proposed return to Serbia and that the first applicant was at risk of persecution.

THE LAW

The applicants originally complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they faced a risk to life and limb should they be returned to Serbia. However, now that they have been granted a residence permit, they wish to withdraw their application.

The Court considers that this grant of residence permits leads to the conclusion that the matter has been resolved. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.

Moreover, 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 application. Accordingly, the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court should be discontinued and the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
Registrar President