CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10984/16 S.T. against Sweden The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   September 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 February 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant is an Ethiopian national who was born in 1996. The President of the Section granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She was represented before the Court by Mr P. Varga, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Helen Lindquist, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The applicant, whose asylum requests were not taken up for examination in Sweden, complained that her transfer from Sweden to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013) would be in violation of her rights under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. On 29 February 2016 the duty judge of the Court decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicant to Hungary until further notice. On 23 September 2016 the application was communicated to the Government. By a letter of 15 June 2017 the applicant informed the Court that the Migration Agency ( Migrationsverket ) had assumed responsibility for her application because the time-limit for the transfer to Hungary had expired. Thus, she recognised that the matter at hand had been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. She therefore requested that her application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases and that the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court be discontinued. THE LAW The applicant complained that her expulsion from Sweden to Hungary would be contrary to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The Court notes that the applicant no longer risks being transferred to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation as the time-limit for such transfer has expired and that her application for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden will receive a full examination on the merits by the Migration Agency. If the Agency’s decision goes against the applicant, she may appeal to the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. Since such appeals generally have suspensive effect, the applicant would not be expelled while the proceedings are pending. The Court further observes that, should the applicant’s request for asylum in Sweden be rejected by all domestic instances, she may lodge a new application with the Court. In these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the matter has been resolved, reiterating its established case-law according to which, in cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant no longer risks being expelled from that State, it considers the case to have been resolved and strikes it out of its list of cases (see M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, § 32, 8 April 2015). Furthermore, the Court notes, under Article 37 § 1 (a), that due to the resolution of the matter at hand, the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Finally, 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President