CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 juillet 2023

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC10A73 { width:26.87pt; display:inline-block } .sB995083 { width:143.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s33557372 { width:69.38%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s9F82D43E { width:11.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sBE39DE01 { width:27.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7994112 { width:30.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9DDDFC1B { width:30.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s50F1508 { width:11.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE21AFED { width:27.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B3C04F3 { width:30.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA05A8FF9 { width:30.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 12470/21 A.A. and Others against Sweden   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   July   2023 as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Péter Paczolay,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the above application lodged on 25 February 2021, the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed, the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this measure has been complied with, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appended table. They are a family from Afghanistan, consisting of a mother and her four adult daughters, currently living in Sweden. They were represented before the Court by Mr   L.   Edman, a lawyer practicing in Malmö. 2.     The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms H. Lindquist and Mr D. Gillgren, both of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicants, whose asylum requests in Sweden had been finally rejected, complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that if they were deported to Afghanistan they would risk being killed or face treatment in contravention of Article 3. They further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life would be breached if the deportation orders were enforced. Moreover, they complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the Swedish authorities’ assessment of evidence and the length of the proceedings. 4.     After the Government had been given notice of the application and the parties had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, the Court was informed that the first and second applicants had been granted a new examination of the issue of residence permits, under Chapter 12, section 19 of the Alien’s Act ( Utlänningslagen , 2005:716), due to the changed situation in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. 5.     On 21 June 2022 the Court decided to adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome of the new domestic proceedings concerning the first and second applicants. 6.     Subsequently, the parties informed the Court that all applicants had been granted temporary residence permits, valid until the end of 2025 or the beginning of 2026. 7.     The Government requested the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The applicants did not oppose this. However, they requested compensation for their legal costs incurred before the Court in the total amount of 252,673 Swedish kronor ((SEK), approximately 21,500 euros (EUR)), value added tax included. The Government argued that this amount was excessive and that compensation for costs should not exceed a total amount of SEK 29,520 (approximately EUR 2,500), value added tax excluded. THE LAW 8.     The Court notes that the applicants have been granted temporary residence permits valid until the end of 2025 or the beginning of 2026 and therefore no longer risk deportation from Sweden. 9.     In the light of the above, the Court considers that, as regards the complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article   37 §   1   (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article   37 §   1 in fine . Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list of cases, and the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court should be discontinued. 10.     As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of aliens do not concern the determination of an applicant’s civil rights or obligations or of a criminal charge against him or her, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 40, ECHR 2000-X). Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. 11.     Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides that when an application has been struck out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention, the Court has the discretion to award costs. The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example,   Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia   (dec.), no. 72874/01, 21 April 2015). Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court in the present case considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, 1.   Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as regards the complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention; 2.   Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible; 3.   Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English and notified in writing on 31 August 2023.     Renata Degener   Marko Bošnjak   Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. A. A 1955 Afghan 2. A. A 1989 Afghan 3. I. A 1981 Afghan 4. W. A 1988 Afghan 5. Y. A 1988 Afghan   (anonymity has been granted)