FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31218/23
M.M. and A.M.
against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 March 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Frédéric Krenc,
 Alain Chablais, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2023,

Having regard to the decision to grant the applicants 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 two applicants, M.M. and A.M., were born in 2000 and 2003, respectively. They were represented by Ms R. Ahlstrand, a lawyer practising in Uppsala.

The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention concerning the decisions to expel them from Sweden to Afghanistan were communicated to the Swedish Government (“the Government”).

Subsequently, the parties informed the Court that the applicants’ deportation orders had become statute-barred in October 2024. The Government also informed the Court of the following. The second applicant (A.M.) had submitted a new application for asylum and had been granted refugee status and a temporary residence permit valid until 11 December 2027. The first applicant (M.M.) had not submitted any new application for asylum but had the possibility to do so. A new application would entail a full examination of the grounds for asylum and a residence permit put forward at that time. If a new application would be rejected by the Migration Agency (Migrationsverket), such a decision would be subject to appeal to a migration court (migrationsdomstol) and subsequently to the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen), during which time the first applicant could not be expelled.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the second applicant has been granted refugee status and a temporary residence permit valid until 11 December 2027 and therefore no longer risks deportation from Sweden.

In view of the above, the Court considers that, in regard to the second applicant, the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see, among others, Khan v. Germany (striking out) [GC], no. 38030/12, § 33, 21 September 2016, with further references; A.J. v. Greece (dec.), no. 34298/18, § 50, 26 April 2022; and A.A. and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 12470/21, §§ 6-9, 4 July 2023) 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 in that part under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

The Court furthermore notes that the first applicant may institute new – and full – proceedings for asylum and a residence permit, in which his claims will be examined on the merits by the Migration Agency and – in the event of appeals – by the courts. Consequently, the Court finds that the first applicant is not, at the moment or for a considerable time to come, at risk of being deported to Afghanistan. Should a new asylum request be rejected by the domestic authorities and courts, he has the opportunity to lodge a new application before the Court.

In these circumstances, the Court finds that, in regard to the first applicant, 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, cited above, § 34; Atayeva and Burman v. Sweden (striking out), no. 17471/11, §§ 21-24, 31 October 2013; B.Z. v. Sweden (striking out), no. 74352/11, §§ 18-20, 18 December 2012; and A.J. v. Greece, cited above, § 51) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list. The interim measure previously indicated in this application therefore ceases to have any basis.

Finally, the Court notes that the applicants asked for reimbursement of procedural costs and also requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The Court reiterates 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). 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. 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, § 33, 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 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two 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 30 April 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Georgios A. Serghides
 Acting Deputy Registrar President