ECtHR - W.H. v Sweden, Application no. 49341/10, 8 April 2015

Facts:

The applicant was a single female from Iraq who claimed asylum in Sweden in 2008.  

The basis for her asylum claim was the generally insecure situation for Mandaeans in Iraq and the threat of being forcibly remarried as she was a divorcee. She also sought to rely on her status as a single woman with no social network in Iran, and that she was living in a relationship with Muslim Iraqi in Sweden which would not be accepted by her family or Iraqi society.

The applicant’s case was rejected by the Migration Board, which found that neither the general situation in Iraq for Mandaeans nor her personal circumstances constituted grounds for asylum, and her deportation to Iraq was ordered. The Migration Court upheld the decision of the Board and the applicant subsequently exhausted all domestic legal remedies.

In a judgment dated 27 March 2014, the Fifth Section of the Court unanimously held that the implementation of the deportation order against the applicant would not violate Article 3 ECHR, provided that she was returned to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). It found that although she would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in other parts of Iraq, due to her status as a single female without the protection of a social network or male relatives, and the additional characteristic of being a member of a small religious minority; it was viable for her to safely relocate to the KRI which was relatively safe and respected the rights of religious minorities including Mandaeans.  On 8 September 2014 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.

On 15 October 2014 the Migration Board granted the applicant a permanent residence permit in Sweden. It considered that while she was not a refugee, she was deserving of protection based on the prevailing general security situation in Baghdad and her status as a female without a social network in Iraq who also belonged to a religious minority. As hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had fled to the KRI within the space of a few months, there was no internal relocation alternative. 

Decision & reasoning:

As the applicant had been granted permanent residence in Sweden, there was no longer a risk of expulsion to Iraq, or the associated potential risk of violation of Article 3. The applicant no longer wished to pursue her application and had no objection to the Court striking out her case.

The Court had regard to the fact that the applicant did not intend to pursue her application, under Article 37(1)(a) ECHR, and found that the matter had been resolved within the meaning of Article 37(1)(b) ECHR.

There were no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which required the continued examination of the case by the Court.

Therefore the application was struck out of the Court’s list and Rule 39 interim measures that had been in place preventing the deportation of the applicant until final judgment were discontinued. 

Outcome:

Case struck out of the list pursuant to Article 37(1)(a) and (b)

Observations/comments:

Given the Court’s previous judgment, the main issue to be considered by the Grand Chamber was the viability of the applicant’s internal relocation to the KRI.

The Swedish authorities, with regard to the changing political and humanitarian situation in Iraq since the case was referred, whereby there was a significant influx of refugees and internally displaced people into KRI, recognised that these developments meant that it was no longer viable to remove the applicant to the KRI and granted the applicant permanent residence. 

A summary of the Court’s first judgment in this matter can be found at the following link.

For further information on the concepts involved in this case, see the reports published by the Actors of Protection and the Application of the Internal Protection Alternative (APAIPA) project, coordinated by ECRE.