According to the ECtHR press release of 19 February 2026:

“The applicants are a family of four Azerbaijani nationals: Mr V.N., his wife, now deceased, and their daughter and son. They were born in 1973, 1975, 2006 and 1999, respectively.

The family arrived in Sweden in May 2013 and requested asylum, which was refused. The case concerns the authorities’ subsequent refusal to grant Mr V.N. a residence permit because they considered him a threat to public order and security. Several deportation orders were also issued against him, which have never been enforced. His deportation to Azerbaijan was stayed by the European Court in December 2023 under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court.

Mr V.N.’s wife and children were, on the other hand, granted temporary residence permits in December 2021, after the mother was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She died in June 2024.

Mr V.N. and his two children all apparently still live in Sweden.

Relying on Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant family complain about the migration authorities’ decisions in 2023 refusing to grant Mr V.N. a residence permit or to suspend his deportation, while his wife was seriously ill.

The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the first, second and third applicants and decided to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

It declared the application inadmissible in respect of the fourth applicant.”

The court highlighted that the scope of the case was limited to whether on 1 November and 7 December 2023 there was a positive obligation on Sweden to grant the first applicant a residence permit or suspend the valid deportation order of 31 August 2022 in view of the fact that the second applicant had “a short life expectancy”.

The court highlighted that the case was not about the spouses being physically separated at the time of the second applicant’s death on 16 June 2024 (since the first applicant was in Sweden at the time, where he still is), or about the third applicant lacking her father’s support while witnessing her mother dying.

The court also emphasised that, since immigration control is a legitimate aim for the State to interfere with the right to respect for family life, Article 8 does not impose a general obligation to respect a married couple’s choice of country for their matrimonial residence or to authorise family reunification on its territory.

In this particular case, the court agreed with the government that only on 6 March 2024 it became clear from a new medical certificate that the second applicant was receiving palliative care. In addition, the court considered that the applicants did not substantiate that the third applicant’s well-being was at stake, as she reached adulthood on 24 April 2024 and until then her health had been taken care of by the Swedish authorities, she had her mother and adult brother with her, living in Sweden based on temporary residence permits. Furthermore, the third applicant was dependent on her brother’s support and her father was not her guardian.

The court also looked at the first two applicants’ ties to Sweden, noting that these were limited, and that they had strong ties to Azerbaijan. After the refusal of their asylum requests, they remained illegally in Sweden and only after six years, the second applicant was granted a temporary residence permit on the basis of her illness, diagnosed in the beginning of 2020, while the first applicant lodged another asylum application which was also rejected and he continued to disobey the deportation order and to claim impediments to his deportation. In addition, he was considered a threat to public order and security in Sweden, due to serious crimes committed in Azerbaijan between 2010 and 2013 in connection with debt collecting, including torture, bodily harm, kidnapping, extortion and threats. Furthermore, the court noted that there was information indicating that the first applicant was withholding his passport and had submitted false documents.

Considering all these elements, the court considered that the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the interests of the applicants and those of controlling immigration, and that this was done with respect of the margin of appreciation, and that there was no reason to question the decision of the Migration Agency not to suspend the valid deportation order of 31 August 2022.

Thus, the court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the first, second and third applicants.