CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sC847C690 { width:14.36pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7E80E966 { width:8.36pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7CA1E7F8 { width:12.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46F31693 { width:21.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s229ADB9A { width:222.12pt; font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps; display:inline-block } .s8A141A5C { width:18.21pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s2D4C21B0 { width:228.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 30977/05 by F.O. and J.O. against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   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 24 August 2005,   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 F.O. and Mrs J.O., are Azerbaijani nationals born in 1981 and 1979, respectively, and living in Lund. They are represented before the Court by Mr E. Arfwedson, a lawyer practising in Lund. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. They arrived in Sweden on 27 July 2004, together with their daughter, L.O., who was born in 2001. They applied for asylum on the same day. The first applicant submitted that he had been working politically against corruption in Azerbaijan, as a result of which he had been persecuted and beaten, made to perform military service (from which he had absconded) and the second applicant had been raped, witnessed by her daughter and mother, the latter having also been assaulted and an attempt made to strangle her. After the applicants’ arrival in Sweden, they had learnt that their parents had disappeared in Azerbaijan. Upon return the first applicant would risk 20 years’ imprisonment for alleged crimes during his military service. He was afraid that he would be killed in the prison. Many opposition members had disappeared in prison. Since arriving in Sweden, the first applicant suffered grave anguish, insomnia and depression, all elements of a post-traumatic stress disorder, because of what his wife and child, as well as he himself, had be exposed to in Azerbaijan. Following the beatings, he also suffered from chronic headaches and heart cramps. The second applicant suffered from serious anguish, nightmares and hallucinations, all elements of a post-traumatic stress-disorder as a result of the rape. She had tried to commit suicide on the night of the rape by slitting her wrists. During her time in Sweden she had attempted suicide several times. For the second applicant to be forced to leave Sweden would constitute a very severe risk for self-destructive action. Furthermore, she had severe problems in her relations with her daughter because of a feeling of guilt caused by the fact that her daughter had had to witness the rape. It was crucial that she continue to process her trauma through psychotherapeutic treatment. Forcing her to leave Sweden, would most likely cause new suicide attempts. The applicants’ daughter suffered from epilepsy and had constant headaches. She behaved violently towards other children. She was in poor condition after having watched the rape of her mother, and an attempt to strangle her grandmother. The child had the capacity to overcome her problems but it would take a long time and regular treatment. If she did not undergo such treatment, this would most probably harm her psycho-social development and cause her life-long problems. The applicants’ request for asylum was rejected by the Swedish authorities: The applicants were not deemed to be at serious risk if returned to Azerbaijan. On 25 August 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 Azerbaijan. On 26 August 2005 the President decided to apply Rule 39 until further notice. On 6 January 2006 the President of the Second Section adjourned the application at the request of the Government, following the enactment of a temporary amendment to the Swedish Aliens Act. On 7 April 2006 the Government informed the Court that, on 26   March   2005, the Aliens Appeals Board had granted the applicants and their daughter a one-year temporary residence permit in view of the humanitarian aspects involved in the case, the temporary nature being due to the need for the applicants to prove their identities. The Government invited the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. On 11 May 2006 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wished to withdraw the case. COMPLAINTS The applicants originally complained under Article 3 of the Convention of their proposed return to Azerbaijan. 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 Azerbaijan. However, now that they have been granted temporary residence, they wish to withdraw their case. The Court considers that this grant of residence permits leads to the conclusion that the matter has been resolved. Although the permits are temporary, to have permanent residence the applicants only have to prove their identities. 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