CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 42101/23 V.N. and Others against Sweden lodged on 7 December 2023 communicated on 3 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are a family, consisting of a father (the first applicant), a mother (the second applicant) and their two children (the third and fourth applicants), all Azerbaijani citizens. In 2019 the applicants applied for asylum in Sweden. Their asylum requests were refused, but the second applicant was granted a residence permit on the grounds that her deportation would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to her medical condition. The third and fourth applicants were granted residence permits on the grounds that their deportation would be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The first applicant was not granted a residence permit and his deportation was ordered. The Swedish Migration Agency and Migration Court found that he had committed grave non-political crimes in Azerbaijan and therefore constituted a threat to public order and security. For these reasons, and considering the other circumstances of the case, the State’s interest in deporting him weighed heavier than the family’s interest of living together in Sweden. Thus, his deportation was found to be proportionate and not contrary to Article   8 of the Convention. The applicants lodged an application with the Court, complaining that the refusal to grant the first applicant a residence permit violated their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. In December 2022 their application was declared inadmissible on the grounds that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. In November 2023 the first applicant applied to the Migration Agency stating that there were impediments to the enforcement of his deportation. He submitted that the second applicant’s condition had deteriorated and that she only had a short time left to live. The Migration Agency found that there were no impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order and thus did not grant him a residence permit. In December 2023 the first applicant was detained with a view to his deportation. He applied to the Migration Agency stating that there were impediments to the enforcement of his deportation and requesting that the enforcement of his deportation be suspended. He submitted, among other things, that the second applicant’s condition had further deteriorated. The Migration Agency found that were no impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order and thus did not grant him a residence permit. The Migration Agency also found that there were no reasons to suspend the enforcement of his deportation. On 7 December 2023 the Court decided to indicate to the Government of Sweden, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed from Sweden until 4 April 2024. That interim measure was subsequently extended by the Court, first until 3 June 2024 and then until further notice. The applicants complain that the Migration Agency’s decision to uphold the first applicant’s deportation order, even after it was concluded that the second applicant had a short time left to live, was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the refusal to grant the first applicant a residence permit or in another way suspend his removal, following the deterioration of the second applicant’s condition, entail a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?