CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 août 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5B12D80C { width:187.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1928/11 W.M.A. against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28   August 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2010, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the Swedish Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is an Iraqi national who was born in 1980. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms G. Isaksson, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a Sunni Kurd who lived in Diyala province. In 2004 he was assaulted and threatened by Islamists. He believes that this was due to his father’s former function as informer for the Baath party. In January 2008, when the applicant and his employer were entering the bakery where they worked, the applicant heard shooting outside. Two armed and masked men thereafter ran into the bakery and hid under a table. When the police came and asked if the applicant had seen the men, he answered “no” but pointed to the table. The men were then arrested. On their way to the police car, someone started shooting and one of the arrested men managed to flee. The applicant assumed that the two men were terrorists. Later the same day, he moved together with his family to a friend in another part of the city. The day after, his employer told him that his house had been burnt down and that the perpetrators had threatened to kill him. After staying at the friend’s house for a week, the applicant fled Iraq. Threats aimed at the applicant and his family, who still live in Iraq, have thereafter been received by his former employer. On 17 September 2009 the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the applicant’s asylum request as it found no individual threat against him. It pointed out that the identities of the armed men were unknown and that the claim that they were terrorists was based only on speculations on the part of the applicant. Also, the applicant had not received any threats himself and did not know who had burnt his house down or why. Moreover, the Board noted that both the applicant and the employer had been present when the armed men came to the bakery and that nothing had happened to the employer thereafter. As to the incident in 2004, the Board pointed out that a long time had passed since the time and that the applicant’s father had died in 2001. Thus, it was not likely that Islamists would still be interested in the applicant due the his father’s former job. Finally, the Board noted that the security situation in Iraq had improved significantly since the time of the incidents. On 10 December 2009 the Migration Court ( Migrationsdomstolen ) upheld the Board’s decision. On 25 February 2010 the Migration Court of Appeal ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused to leave appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that his deportation to Iraq would violate Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. THE LAW By a letter dated 2 February 2012 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 March 2012. The letter was returned to the Court unopened with a note that the applicant was unknown at the address. The applicant has not contacted the Court since 7 February 2011 and has thus not informed the Court of his new address. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Stephen Phillips   Mark Villiger   Deputy Registrar   President