A.M. and Others v. Sweden (dec.)

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120

June 2009

A.M. and Others v. Sweden (dec.) - 38813/08

Decision 16.6.2009 [Section III]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Expulsion

Refusal of asylum request on grounds that applicants had not sought protection of authorities in home State from acts of private individuals: inadmissible

Article 8

Expulsion

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Refusal of asylum request in case in which applicant family had spent four years adapting to life in host State: inadmissible

Facts: The applicants were a Russian family of four comprising a married couple and their two minor children. The first applicant was an officer in the Russian army. He left Russia and travelled to Sweden, where he applied for asylum and a residence permit in 2004 on the grounds that he had been assaulted and threatened after reporting fellow army officers to his superiors for weapons smuggling. Three months after his arrival in Sweden, he was joined by the other applicants, who also made applications for asylum and a residence permit. The second applicant said that she too had been assaulted and that she and the children had received threats. The Swedish Migration Board rejected the requests for asylum on the grounds that the family’s problems emanated from individuals and that they should therefore have sought the protection of the Russian authorities. In an appeal to the Migration Court the first applicant responded that when he had reported the weapons smuggling to various military authorities, they had sought to protect one another and had threatened him with a court martial for slander. He added that he had been repeatedly summoned by the police, which suggested that people were still looking for him and that his family would not be safe in Russia. The Migration Court dismissed the appeal, notably on the grounds that the family had not reported the threats or assaults to the Russian authorities.

Inadmissible: Article 3 – No substantial grounds had been established for believing that the applicants would face a real risk of persecution or treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if deported to Russia. Firstly, there were doubts about the veracity of their allegations, particularly as regards the alleged failure of the military authorities to look into the first applicant’s report of weapons smuggling and as regards the authenticity and effect of the summonses he was alleged to have received. Even if genuine, the summonses gave no indication that the first applicant was wanted by the Russian authorities. Secondly, the applicants had not reported the alleged threats and assaults to the Russian authorities or requested their protection. Even if the allegation that the military authorities had failed to investigate the reported weapons smuggling was true, that did not automatically mean that the applicants would be deprived of the protection of the civil authorities against threats from other individuals. It was important to note in that connection that the case concerned deportation to a Contracting Party to the Convention which had undertaken to secure the fundamental rights guaranteed under its provisions. Lastly, there was no impediment to the applicants’ settling in another part of Russia, away from their home town, on their return: manifestly ill founded.

Article 8 – The applicants would be deported together so there was no question of the family being split up. There was no reason why the first and second applicants should not be able to find work in Russia. Although the family had been in Sweden for more than four years and had adapted to life there, they had known since their arrival that they might not be permitted to remain and had never held Swedish residence permits. All the applicants were Russian nationals and had spent all but four years of their lives in Russia: manifestly ill-founded.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy