European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v Sweden - 51104/08 [2010] ECHR 207 (26 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/207.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 207
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
51104/08
by X.
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Setion
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2008,
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
1. The applicant is a Libyan national who was born in 1970 and is currently in Sweden. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Stenberg, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms G. Isaksson, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 28 August 2002 the applicant entered Sweden and, on the following day, he applied for asylum and a residence permit. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket), he submitted essentially that, during discussions at the University, he had expressed his opinions and criticised the Libyan regime, for which reason he had been arrested and tortured by the Libyan Security Service during approximately three months in 1996. In 1999 he had started work as a teacher of political science but he had continued to criticise the regime during his lectures. Because of this, he had been warned and even threatened several times and he had therefore left the country. He submitted various documents in support of his account.
4. On 10 February 2004 the Migration Board rejected the application. It did not question that the applicant might have been imprisoned and tortured as claimed, but noted that he had been released and that he had then studied and worked as a teacher, continuing to express his criticism against the regime, without being arrested again. It therefore concluded that the applicant had not made probable that he would risk persecution or imprisonment and torture if returned to Libya and, consequently, he was not in need of protection in Sweden.
5. The applicant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden), maintaining his claims and adding that, after he had left Libya, his father had been called to the police station and had been questioned about the applicant’s whereabouts. He also produced copies of various documents.
6. On 16 December 2005 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected his appeal. It agreed with the reasoning of the Migration Board and added that, in its view, it would not have been possible for the applicant to have worked as a teacher for three years until he left the country in 2002 if he had been of special interest to the Libyan authorities. It further considered that the applicant’s new claims before it were simply an escalation of his story. Since the appeal was rejected, the deportation order became final.
7. On 27 August 2006 the Migration Board found that there were no grounds under the temporary legislation in force at the time to grant the applicant leave to remain in Sweden.
8. In September 2008 the applicant renewed his application for a residence permit but, in October 2008, this was also rejected by the Migration Board since it found that the applicant’s claims, in essence, had already been considered during his initial asylum proceedings.
9. The applicant appealed to the Migration Court, maintaining his claims and adding that, since he had arrived in Sweden, he had started to change his religious beliefs from traditional Islam towards the Salafiyyah movement and he had now been an active member for several years. He alleged that members of the Salafiyah movement were considered to pose a threat to national security in Libya and therefore persecuted.
10. On 26 November 2008 the Migration Court rejected the appeal. As concerned the applicant’s membership in the Salafyyiah movement, the court found that he had failed to give a valid excuse for not having invoked his membership earlier.
11. Upon further appeal by the applicant, the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen), on 22 January 2009, refused leave to appeal.
12. On 28 April 2009, upon request by the applicant, the Court decided to indicate to the Swedish Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court a suspension of the applicant’s deportation to Libya until 27 May 2009 and, on 26 May 2009, the Court prolonged this measure until further notice.
COMPLAINTS
13. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 to the Convention, the applicant complained that, if he were deported from Sweden to Libya, he would be persecuted, imprisoned and tortured, or even executed, inter alia because he belonged to the Salafiyyah movement and had expressed criticism against the Libyan regime both while in Libya and in Sweden.
THE LAW
14. On 5 January 2010 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw the application because the deportation order against him in Sweden had expired and the Swedish migration authorities therefore would reconsider his case on the merits.
15. The Court notes that the applicant no longer risks deportation from Sweden and that he does not intend to pursue his case. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the 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.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President