CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 août 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC3C151 { width:116.76pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 32891/22 A.N. against Sweden (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31   August   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28   June 2022, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant   anonymity   under Rule   47 § 4 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Persson , a lawyer practising in Malmö. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the decision to expel him from Sweden to Syria was communicated to the Swedish Government (“the Government”). Subsequently, the parties informed the Court that the applicant had been granted a temporary residence permit, valid for the period from 28   October   2022 until 28 November 2023, on account of the general security situation in the applicant’s place of origin, al-Hassakah in Syria, and that the decision to expel him was not enforceable while the residence permit was valid. The parties further informed the Court that once that residence permit expires, the applicant would be able to apply for it to be extended. THE LAW In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant is not at the moment, and for a considerable time to come, at risk of being expelled. Moreover, after the expiry of the temporary residence permit the applicant has the possibility to apply for it to be extended and to invoke again, before the domestic authorities, any impediments to the enforcement of his expulsion order and, if necessary, lodge another application with the Court. The Court notes in addition, that should the applicant have any claims for compensation relating to the decision to expel him, which is at present not enforceable, he may raise them in domestic civil proceedings or in an application to the Chancellor of Justice. In these circumstances, the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, among others, Khan v. Germany (striking out) [GC], no. 38030/12, § 34, 21 September 2016, with further references, and A.J. V. Greece (dec.), no. 34298/18, § 51, 26 April 2022), and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article   37   §   1 in fine . Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list, and the interim measure applied under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court thereby lifted. The Court notes that the applicant asked for reimbursement of procedural costs and also requested compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Pursuant to Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court, the Court has discretion to award costs if a case is struck out of the list. In the present case, the Court does not consider it appropriate to make such an award, noting that the applicant has not submitted any itemised particulars of his claim or any relevant supporting documents. Furthermore, the Court notes that it is not empowered to award damages if a case is struck out of the list (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 132, ECHR 2007 ‑ I). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides   to lift the interim measure indicated under   Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 September 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (Expulsion) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location 32891/22 28/06/2022 Anonymat A.N. 2001   Persson Alicia Malmö