SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11665/05 
by Asel HASANOVA 
against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa, President
 Mr I. Cabral Barreto
 Mr V. Butkevych
 Mrs A. Mularoni
 Mrs E. Fura-Sandström
 Ms D. Jočienė, 
 Mr D. Popović, judges
and Mr S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 March 2005,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Asel Hasanova, is an Uzbekistan national who was born in 1996. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Käärik, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant arrived in Sweden together with her parents and sister on 22 August 2003. The family applied for asylum a few days later, claiming that the father had been repeatedly arrested and ill-treated by the Uzbekistani police. He had also been wrongly accused of murder.

On 28 July 2004 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected their application.

The family appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden). They claimed that the applicant’s father had taken part in political activities in Sweden against the regime in Uzbekistan. Moreover, the applicant and her mother suffered from serious psychiatric problems. Both of them had tried to commit suicide and had been admitted for psychiatric care.

On 11 February 2005 the appeal was rejected.

On 21 March 2005 the family filed a new application for residence permits with the Aliens Appeals Board.

Following the Court’s indication of 5 April 2005, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to deport the applicant, the Migration Board, on the same day, stayed the enforcement of the deportation order concerning the applicant and her family.

On 14 November 2005 the Aliens Appeals Board granted the applicant and her family permanent residence permits in Sweden. The Board had regard to a guiding decision of the Government on 7 July 2005 concerning persons from Uzbekistan and found that, due to the applicant’s poor health, she and her family were entitled to residence permits on humanitarian grounds.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that, in view of her mental ill-health, her deportation to Uzbekistan would involve violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 14 November 2005 the applicant and her family members were granted permanent residence permits in Sweden. On 15 November 2005 the Swedish Government submitted therefore that the matter before the Court had been resolved. The applicant did not react to the Government’s submission.

Having regard to the grant of permanent residence permits to the applicant and her family, the Court is satisfied that the matter has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. In addition, it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). The application should accordingly be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. Naismith J.-P. Costa 
 Deputy Section Registrar President

HASANOVA v. SWEDEN DECISION


HASANOVA v. SWEDEN DECISION