CASE OF R.G. v. SWITZERLAND

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF R.G. v. SWITZERLAND

(Application no. 30036/22)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of R.G. v. Switzerland,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 María Elósegui, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 30036/22) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 June 2022 by a Russian national, R.G. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1992, lives in Valzeina and was represented by Ms S. Motz, a lawyer practising in Zürich;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Swiss Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent ad interim, Mr A. Scheidegger, at the Federal Office of Justice;

the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;

the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);

the decision to indicate an interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The present case concerns the Swiss authorities’ authorisation of the applicant’s removal to Russia where he allegedly faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

2.  The applicant, who is a Russian national of Chechen ethnic origin, was born in 1992 in Chechnya and lived in Russia prior to his arrival to Switzerland.

3.  In his application before this Court the applicant alleged that his removal to Russia authorised by the Swiss authorities would be in breach of the guarantees of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, since he faces a risk of ill-treatment and a risk to his life in the country of origin.

4.  The Court, being the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the present complaint falls to be examined from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

5.  The relevant general principles and the Court’s approach to risk assessment under Article 3 of the Convention have been elucidated and presented in the judgment adopted by the Grand Chamber in the case of Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia ([GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 93-116, 29 April 2022).

6.  Turning to the present case the Court observes that initially in 2015 the applicant attempted to travel to Switzerland and requested a visa in the Swiss consulate in Moscow, however that visa application was refused. In 2018 the applicant’s mother arrived to Switzerland and was granted asylum in connection with allegations of her and the applicant’s brother persecution by the authorities.

7.  In 2019, having travelled for four days in a van with blacked out windows, unaware of the route and with unspecified travel documents, the applicant arrived from Russia to Switzerland. Upon arrival he requested asylum referring to alleged persecution in Russia due to involvement in opposition activities and support of separatist movement in Chechnya.

8.  On 15 August 2019 the applicant’s asylum request was dismissed and his expulsion ordered by the State Secretariat for Migration. The decision finding the applicant’s claims to be contradictory and not credible highlighted in particular that 1) in 2015 the applicant used for his visa application a passport issued in one of the central regions of Russia, which undermined his claim of spending most of his life in Chechnya, 2) the claims of alleged temporary detention and subsequent searches by the Chechen authorities were vague, contradictory as to dates and inconsistent with the applicant’s repeated voluntary travel to Chechnya, and 3) there has been no media reporting and corroboration of the alleged arrests of students on 1 May 2012.

9.  The applicant appealed the above decision to the Supreme Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) (the SAC).

10.  On 22 March 2022 the SAC dismissed the applicant’s appeal concurring with the findings of the migration authorities. The text of the judgment in great detail analysed the applicant’s allegations and found them to be not credible and not substantiated. Specifically, the judgement highlighted 1) contradictory and unclear nature of the information on whether, when and how long the applicant actually lived in Chechnya, 2) conflicting accounts regarding authenticity of identity documents submitted to the Swiss embassy in Moscow and to the Swiss migration authorities, 3) lack of specific details and independent corroboration regarding the alleged events leading to the applicant’s expulsion from the university and related alleged detention in police station, 4) vague, unclear and abstract description of his alleged anti-government activities, 5) repeated voluntary returns to Chechnya from other regions in Russia, 6) contradictory information regarding arrest of his alleged associate, 7) inconsistency in dates and descriptions of events by him and his mother, and 8) lack of corroboration in submitted documents of the facts alleged by the applicant.

11.  The SAC accepted that the applicant was born in Chechnya, had been expelled from the university at some point and sought medical assistance for injuries in 2014. However, beyond that either the available information directly contradicted the applicant’s story, e.g. there was direct proof of his residence in central regions of Russia, or the applicant’s allegations were devoid of substantiation. Accordingly, it was concluded that the existence of individual risks had not been proven by the applicant.

12.  The SAC further pointed out that there is no situation of generalized violence in Chechnya and in any event the applicant can take up residence in other parts of Russia. Lastly, he was described by the SAC as generally healthy young man, who had experience living in central regions of Russia, and who had family and social network in the country.

13.  The Court notes that the assessment of the applicant’s claims by the administrative authorities was carried out in 2019 and the final domestic judgment of the SAC was adopted on 22 March 2022. Therefore, in accordance with the ex nunc principle, the Court must assess the existence of a real risk at the present moment.

14.  The relevant country of origin information concerning situation in Russia had been recently summarised in the judgment in the case of U v. France (no. 53254/20, §§ 67-78, 15 February 2024).

15.  The Court notes at the outset that in the recent years it had dealt with a number of cases concerning removals to Russia of persons originating from North Caucasus and alleging individual risks of persecution either due to the past hostilities or their civil or political activities. In virtually all of the cases where a breach of Article 3 of the Convention was established it had been on the account of a breach of a procedural obligation to provide individualised and ex nunc assessment of specific and established allegations of a real risk (see S v. France, no. 18207/21, § 118, 6 October 2022; R v. France, no. 49857/20, §§ 141-142, 30 August 2022; K.I. v. France, no. 5560/19, §§ 144-145, 15 April 2021). Where such assessment had been duly carried out the Court had not cast doubt on its’ outcome (see U v. France, cited above, §§ 116-123) and dismissed as manifestly ill-founded the complaints where there had been no proven, individualised and sufficient basis demonstrating the existence of a real risk (see V. v. France (dec.), no. 48932/20, §§ 53-55, 18 April 2024; I.A. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 14588/21, §§ 27-28, 18 April 2024).

16.  Previously in the judgment in the case of R v. France (cited above, § 121) the Court had concluded that despite some reports of repeated violations of human rights in Russia in general and in the Northern Caucasus in particular the general situation had not been such as to prevent all removals to the country. Further, the Court found that while persons of Chechen, Ingush and Dagestani ethnic origin, who participated in the armed hostilities, assisted them as civilians or face terrorism charges, encounter elevated risks of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention they could not be regarded as a vulnerable group systematically exposed to such treatment (R v. France, § 122, cited above). These conclusions had been subsequently confirmed by the Court in other cases (see for example U v. France, §§ 111‑114 and I.A. v. Belgium (dec.), §§ 20-22, both cited above) and nothing in presently available case material gives grounds to reach a different conclusion.

17.  Accordingly, the Court will proceed to examine whether in the light of individual circumstances, substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicant, if returned, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Khasanov and Rakhmanov, §§ 93, 95 and 100, cited above).

18.  In relation to claims based on an individual real risk, it is incumbent on persons who allege that their removal would amount to a breach of Article 3 to adduce, to the greatest extent practically possible, material and information allowing the authorities of the Contracting State concerned, as well as the Court, to assess the risk a removal may entail (see Khasanov and Rakhmanov, § 110, cited above).

19.  The Court notes the self-reported and unsupported by documentary or other corroborating evidence nature of the most of the applicant’s allegations before the Swiss authorities and in the proceedings before this Court. The documents submitted demonstrate that the applicant was born in Chechnya (birth certificate), that he was expelled in 2019 from the university for unspecified administrative offences breaching public order (information note from university archives), and that in 2014 he was admitted to a hospital for treatment of injuries allegedly sustained during a mine explosion in the mountains, while collecting wild herbs, and that after two days and once his condition improved he left the hospital without notice (extract of the patient’s medical records). It must be further noted that the fact of the applicant’s mother being granted asylum in Switzerland is not capable in itself to give credibility to the applicant’s claims, in particular given the lack of direct connection and inconsistencies identified by the national authorities.

20.  The Court further notes that there is no convincing evidence that the applicant could be regarded as a person of interest to the Russian authorities. Neither currently, nor in the past had there been any criminal inquiries against him, he is not listed as a suspect, witness or a person to be detained in connection with any crime, and the authorities never attempted to seek his extradition (compare U v. France, § 133, cited above). Furthermore, it must be observed that in the event of removal to Russia nothing would oblige the applicant to either travel to Chechnya or to take up residence in that region.

21.  In sum, the Court, similarly to the SAC (see paragraph 11 above), is unable to conclude that in the light of the available information it could be established that the applicant faces any individual risk in case of his removal to Russia.

22.  The case material available to the Court further clearly demonstrates that the Swiss authorities have duly discharged their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention by rigorously examining the applicant’s claims (see paragraphs 8, 10-12 above) and, following a thorough analysis, by dismissing specific allegations with reliance on sufficient relevant material and reasonable arguments (compare M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 74-80, 26 April 2022 and B and C v. Switzerland, nos. 889/19 and 43987/16, §§ 61-63, 17 November 2020). Nothing in the Court’s ex nunc analysis gives grounds to disagree with their findings or to establish that the current information warrants a diverging conclusion.

23.  Lastly, the applicant alleges that given the war in Ukraine he would face risks related to ongoing hostilities and forced conscription in the Russian armed forces. The Swiss Government raised a non-exhaustion of domestic remedies objection in this regard, because the applicant had not advanced the relevant arguments on the domestic level. The Court does not find it necessary to rule on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the applicant’s allegations in this regard are in any event largely abstract and generalised.

24.  The Court observes that nothing in the available material indicates existence of ongoing hostilities or generalised violence affecting civilian population in connection with the war in Ukraine (compare L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, §§ 119-126, 15 October 2015). Also, there appears to be no convincing grounds to consider that the applicant would be involved in the ongoing conflict through conscription. According to recent country of origin information the applicant, as a man over 30 years old, is outside of the age group subject to obligatory military service and the partial mobilisation campaign, which took place in the fall of 2022 and affected larger proportion of male population, has not been repeated since that time (see for example, EU Asylum Agency Major developments regarding human rights and military service, Q82-2024, 21 November 2024). Further, while certain reports indicate that in Chechnya some persons of Chechen ethnic origin had been forced to “volunteer” for military service in 2022 (see, for example, Human Rights Watch, Russian Federation: Events of 2022), there is no indication that this practice is still ongoing, systematic and widespread, that the applicant falls within some category of individuals running a heightened risk of such forcible recruitment or that this practice could affect him outside of the region.

25.  Accordingly, in the light of all of the above findings regarding various risks allegedly faced by the applicant and as the case stands at the time of the ex nunc assessment by the Court, there would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of the applicant’s removal to Russia.

26.  The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

27.  The measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 ceases to have any basis.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Sophie Piquet María Elósegui
 Acting Deputy Registrar President