CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 October 1986, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                           J. A. FROWEIN                           F. ERMACORA                           E. BUSUTTIL                           G. JÖRUNDSSON                           G. TENEKIDES                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           J. CAMPINOS                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL                       Mr. F. MARTINEZ                         Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 4 April 1986 by M.C. and his family against Sweden and registered on 4 April 1986 under file No. 12072/86;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicants' submissions, may be summarised as follows:   The applicants are the members of the A. family, Pakistani citizens. The individual members of the family are:   1. Mr. M.C., born 1933   2. Mrs. A.R., born 1940   3. N.A., born 1965   4. T.A., born 1970   5. T.A., born 1982.   Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. Sten de Geer, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.   The applicants applied for political asylum in Sweden alleging risk of persecution in their home country, Pakistan, on account of membership of the Ahmadiyya sect.   The National Board of Immigration (statens invandrarverk) refused the application and decided that the applicants should be expelled.   Following appeal from the applicants the Government, on 7 November 1985, confirmed the decision of the Immigration Board.   Following the decision on expulsion Mrs. Amtul Rashid tried to commit suicide twice.   As a result of this, the issue of the enforcement of the expulsion order was transmitted to the National Board of Immigration for reconsideration.   On 4 February 1986 the Board decided that the decision on expulsion should be enforced.   This resulted in Mrs. Amtul Rashid being taken into hospital for psychiatric care.   On 8 February 1986 the son Taskeen tried to commit suicide as a result of the expulsion decision.   He was thereafter, for some time, treated at the Children's and Juveniles' Psychiatric Clinic in Gothenburg. Further medical certificates were issued at the beginning of March 1986 and as a result thereof the police authority of Gothenburg again transmitted the issue of the enforcement of the expulsion decision to the National Board of Immigration for reconsideration.   On 27 March 1986 the Board decided that there was no obstacle to the enforcement of the decision.   The third applicant was taken into custody on 14 March 1986 and the other applicants were taken into custody on 16 March 1986.   Further medical certificates were issued on 2 April 1986 and as a result thereof the matter of enforcement was again on 3 April 1986 transmitted to the National Board of Immigration for reconsideration.   The question of the enforcement of the expulsion decision was then transmitted to the Government which on 17 April 1986 quashed the expulsion order.   Subsequently the applicants were granted residence permits in Sweden.     COMPLAINTS   The applicants refer to numerous medical certificates and allege that these medical certificates should have resulted in a stay in the enforcement of the expulsion decision.   The failure of the authorities to decide not to enforce the expulsion decision in the circumstances constitutes, in the applicants' opinion, a breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention.   Furthermore the applicants complain that the taking into custody of the four year-old child also violates Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   The application was introduced on 4 April 1986.   It was registered on the same day.   On the same day, 4 April 1986, the Secretary to the Commission, in application of Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure, informed the Government of the introduction of the application.   On 7 April 1986 the President of the Commission considered the application in the light of Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure but decided that there were not sufficient reasons to apply Rule 36 in the case.   On 11 April 1986 the applicants' representative informed the Secretary that the National Board of Immigration had transmitted the issue of the enforcement of the expulsion decision to the Government for final determination.   Moreover, the Government had upon receipt of the case decided that the applicants should be released from custody.   On 17 April 1986 the applicants' representative informed the Secretary that on the same day, i.e. 17 April 1986, the Government had decided to quash the decision ordering expulsion of the applicants.   By letter of 24 July 1986 the applicants withdrew their application in view of the fact that they have been granted residence permits in Sweden.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION   The Commission notes that the applicants have withdrawn their application in view of the fact that they have been granted residence permits in Sweden.   The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate the further examination of this case.   The Commission, therefore, accepts the applicants' request to withdraw their application.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES   Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission   (H. C. KRÜGER)                       (C. A. NØRGAARD)