European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> B. v Sweden - 62448/09 [2011] ECHR 1211 (5 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1211.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1211
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
62448/09
by B.
against Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 July 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Mark
Villiger,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Stephen Phillips,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 November 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 decision that the applicant’s identity should not be disclosed to the public under Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, B., is an Iranian national who was born in 1984. He is represented before the Court by Mr Per Myrberg, a lawyer practising in Sundsvall.
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.
The applicant was to be transferred from Sweden to Greece under the Dublin Regulation. He complained that this would violate Article 2 and 3 of the Convention and asked the Court to stay his transfer. On 1 December 2009 the President, granting the request, decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 8 February 2010 the President decided that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, which the Government did. The applicant submitted observations in reply.
On 21 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that in, a leading judgment of 10 December 2010 (UM 7706/10), the Migration Court of Appeal had held that, due to the deficiencies in the Greek asylum procedure, Sweden was responsible under Article 3.2 in the Dublin Regulation for examining the complainant’s application for asylum. As a result of the judgment, the Director for Legal Affairs at the Migration Board adopted an instruction (RCI 19/2010, in force as of 16 December 2010) according to which the Migration Board, for the time being, will not make any decisions on transfers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation and will instead examine such applications on the merits. Furthermore, according to the instruction, the Board will ex officio examine applications for asylum on the merits also in regards to those asylum seekers who have received decisions on transfer to Greece which have gained legal force. Following a request made by the Government concerning the status of the applicant’s case, the Migration Board informed the Government that the applicant’s application for asylum will be examined in Sweden. As it was clear that there no longer existed an enforceable decision to transfer the applicant to Greece under the Dublin Regulation, the Government asked the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. The information given by the Government was transmitted to the applicant for information.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that, due to the poor conditions for asylum seekers in Greece, he will not have his asylum application examined there and, thus, risks being sent to Iran where he faces treatment contrary to Article 2 and 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the information submitted by the Government on 21 January 2011, the Court notes that the applicant does not risk to be transferred to Greece under the Dublin Regulation and his application for asylum will be examined by the Migration Board. Consequently, the matter has been resolved on a domestic level, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. 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