FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 14513/03
by Sadeta MURATOVIC
against Denmark
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
and MrS. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Sadeta Muratovic, born in 1982, is ethnic Bosnian and lives in Randers, Denmark. She is represented before the Court by Mr Lars Thousig Jensen, a lawyer practising in Viborg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, her parents and two siblings entered Denmark on 20 November 2000 without any travel/identification papers and requested asylum in that while they were living in the village Vitomirica in Kosovo in June 1999 Albanian men subjected them to a violent assault, which included rape of the applicant. The applicant and her family succeeded in fleeing to Montenegro and thereon to Denmark.
On 4 February 2002 the Aliens Authorities (Udlændingestyrelsen) refused to grant the applicant asylum, a decision which was upheld on appeal by the Refugee Board (Flygtningenævnet) on 19 August 2002. Both instances found it established that the applicant had been subjected to rape and violence in June 1999, but found that the assault should be seen, not so much as a result of the applicant being Bosnian, but in connection with the situation at the relevant time in Kosovo. In this respect it was recalled that under the mandate of the United Nations, the NATO-led international Kosovo Force, KFOR, being responsible for establishing and maintaining security in Kosovo, on 12 June 1999 intervened in the conflict between Serbian and Kosovar Albanian forces, and that subsequent thereto, for a short while, Albanian armed groups took over specific areas.
The Refugee Board stated in addition, that presently the general security situation as to Bosnians in Kosovo had improved according to inter alia UNHCR’s position paper of April 2002, background no. 309, and UNHCR’s and OSCE’s report on ethnic minorities, background no. 313.
Finally, although finding it established that the applicant was affected by the events in June 1999 to the detriment of her mental health, the Board did not find that a concrete danger existed that she would be subjected to persecution if returned. She was ordered to leave the country immediately.
On 5 September 2002 the applicant requested that the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs (Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere og Integration) grant her a residence permit either on humanitarian grounds pursuant to section 9 b of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) or in the alternative due to extraordinary circumstances pursuant to section 9 c of the Aliens Act. In support thereof the applicant submitted medical reports from which it appeared that she suffered inter alia of headache. Also, the applicant submitted a statement of 22 December 2002 by a psychologist, FBN, who found that the applicant was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and personality disorder. By statement of 14 January 2003 another psychologist, LK, found the applicant psychological anguished, sad, and restless, and in great need of treatment due to her traumatic war-experiences.
By decision of 14 April 2003 the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs refused to grant the applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, since the conditions for granting such under section 9 b of the Aliens Act was not fulfilled, notably since the applicant did not suffer from any serious physical or mental illness. The Ministry noted in that connection that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and personality disorder were not considered to be illnesses, which alone could justify the granting of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Likewise, as regards subjective fear of returning to ones country of origin. The applicant was ordered to leave the country without delay.
On 12 May 2003 the applicant submitted to the Court a statement made by LK on 6 May 2003, according to which subsequent to being refused a residence permit on humanitarian grounds the applicant had expressed strong thoughts of suicide. It appears that this document has not been submitted to the domestic authorities.
The applicant’s application for a residence permit pursuant to section 9 c of the Aliens Act was refused by the Aliens Authorities on 4 June 2003. No appeal was lodged against this decision with the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs.Relevant domestic law and background information
The Aliens Act and Kosovars in Denmark.
According to information provided by the Government, in the summer of 1999 Denmark evacuated a total of 2,855 Kosovars, which were selected together with UNHCR. The applicant in the present case was not among those evacuees. She entered Denmark herself in November 2000. A “Kosovo Emergency Act” of April 1999 created the legal basis at domestic level for receiving displaced persons from Kosovo with a need for temporary protection. The Act was repealed in 2000. At the same time a provision was inserted in the Aliens Act introducing the possibility of granting a residence permit to distressed persons from the Kosovo Province assumed to need temporary protection (now section 9 e (1)). A precondition for obtaining a residence permit under this provision is that the person in question must be assumed to need temporary protection in Denmark and formerly held a residence permit pursuant to the “Kosovo Emergency Act” or has been registered as an asylum-seeker before 30 April 1999. The assessment whether applicants are eligible for a residence permit under section 9 e (1) of the Aliens Act is made on the basis of UNHCR recommendations. Thus, in accordance with the UNHCR recommendations it is possible to issue residence permits under section 9 e (1) to persons - who formerly held a residence permit under the Kosovo Emergency Act or who applied for asylum before 30 April 1999 – and who can be referred to one of the categories of “chronically ill persons whose conditions requires specialised medical intervention of a type not yet available in Kosovo”; “Persons with severe and chronic mental illness whose conditions requires specialised medical intervention of a type not yet available in Kosovo”; “Severely handicapped persons (including their caregivers) whose wellbeing depends on a specialised support system not yet available in Kosovo”; “Unaccompanied elderly persons who have no relatives or any other form of societal support in Kosovo”; and “ Separated children without relatives or caregivers in Kosovo, and for whom it is found not to be in the best interest to return to Kosovo”. App1ications for a residence permit under section 9 e (1) of the Aliens Act are determined in the first instance by the Aliens Authorities and in the second instance by the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs.
The applicant in the present case is not covered by section 9 1 (e) of the Aliens Act because she never held a residence permit under the “Kosovo Emergency Act” and she entered Denmark after 30 April 1999. However - like asylum-seekers from other countries – she had the possibility of applying for asylum pursuant to section 7 of the Aliens Act, for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds pursuant to section 9 b of the Act, or for a residence permit due to extraordinary circumstances pursuant to section 9 c of the Act.
Asylum is granted to aliens, who satisfy the conditions of the Geneva Convention. Applications for asylum are determined in the first instance by the Aliens Authorities and in the second instance by the Refugee Board, which is an independent quasi-judicial body that is not subject to any instructions from the Danish Government. Thus, the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs has no authority to decide applications for asylum. UNHCR Recommendations are included in the background material of the asylum authorities in connection with the determination of concrete asylum cases.
The granting of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds pursuant to section 9 b of the Act is a discretionary decision, which according to practice may be granted to persons who do not satisfy the conditions of the Geneva Convention, but who is suffering from very severe physical or mental illness (unless the possibility of receiving the requisite medical assistance exists in the applicant’s country of origin). Applications for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds cf. section 9 b (1) are determined by the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs.
A residence permit may be granted pursuant to section 9 c of the Aliens Act on a discretionary basis, if due to extraordinary circumstances, there are strong grounds for granting such. App1ications for a residence permit under this section of the Act are determined in the first instance by the Aliens Authorities and in the second instance by the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs.
According to the Aliens Act an alien whose application for a residence permit for Denmark has been refused must leave the country. Furthermore, under the Act it is possible to provide financial assistance if the person in question returns without undue delay voluntary.
In connection with the forced return of aliens from the Kosovo Province, UNMIK (United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) is the relevant partner. In every case there is a close dialogue between the Danish National Commissioner of Police and UNMIK. Firstly the Danish National Commissioner of Police notifies UNMIK about the return to Kosovo of Kosovars whose applications for a residence permit in Denmark have been refused. Such notifications state the time of the individual’s departure from Kosovo and entry into Denmark and inform of decisions made by the Danish authorities and the individual’s personal situation, including his or her home town in Kosovo, the languages mastered by the individual and where his or her family members are staying. It also appears from the notification if the individual has been expelled due to crime. The notifications also state particulars on the individual’s health status. This notification procedure was first established at a meeting held in Kosovo from 24 to 26 July 2000 between officials of the Danish National Commissioner of Police, the Aliens Authorities and UNMIK. The notification procedure was confirmed and expanded at a meeting in Kosovo on 22 January 2003 between a delegation of high officials from the immigration authorities and UNMIK, who agreed that UNMIK will be provided with extended information, especially concerning the mental status of Kosovars who are non-voluntarily sent back to Kosovo in order to support UNMIK in its efforts to solve its task. Such information will be available to UNMIK by offering the Kosovars in question a voluntary medical status report prior to the return to Kosovo. The Danish National Commissioner of Police has presented to UNMIK a number of Kosovars whose applications for a residence permit in Denmark have been refused for which reason they have had to leave Denmark. In some cases UNMIK objected to the return of the persons in question. In such situations the Danish National Commissioner of Police has suspended the return until further notice.
In the present case, the Danish National Commissioner of Police has not yet contacted UNMIK because the forced return of the applicant has not been planned yet. Normally a forced return takes quite some time, not less than two or three months.
Relevant international materials
With regard to the current security situation in Kosovo, the following statements/ findings are of particular relevance:The Secretary General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo stated in his report of 14 April 2003 covering the activities of UNMIK and the developments in Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro among other things that given the continued violence, harassment and discrimination faced by minorities, achieving sustainable minority returns to Kosovo was difficult, time-consuming and resource-intensive; In his report of 26 June 2003 he stated inter alia that incidents of violence and crimes against minorities continued to be a cause for concern within Kosovo;In his report of 15 October 2003 he stated inter alia that despite setbacks resulting from recent violent incidents involving Kosovo Serb victims, the overall rate of returns continued to accelerate during the reporting period. Over 2,200 displaced persons had returned so far that year to areas where they were a minority (including 1,016 Kosovo Serb, 693 Roma/ Ashkaelia /Egyptians, 242 Bosnians, 74 Gorani and 239 Kosovo Albanians). Funding expected from several major donors had been provided in Kosovo and work on a number of returns projects had begun in earnest, including the return of Kosovo Serbs to Podgorce (Gnjilane region) and Zhupa Valley (Prizren region), and Roma/ Ashkaelia/Egyptian returns to Magura (Pristinia region) and Pristina town. The heightened level of security within the Kosovo Serb and other minority communities had not resulted in the cancelling of any returns project, but it had led to numerous postponements of returns activities, at a stage in the season where such delays may mean that returns are not possible until next spring. It was also considered likely to have a dampening effect on individuals’ return.The Tenth Assessment of the Situation of Ethnic Minorities in Kosovo of March 2003, conducted jointly by OSCE and the UNHCR, stated that minorities continue to face varying degrees of harassment, intimidation and provocation, as well as limited freedom of movement, and that considering the overall situation described in the report, the changes noted during the reporting period were not yet fundamental enough to conclude that conditions would exist for large scale return of ethnic minorities in the near future, underscoring the continuing need for international protection for members of ethnic communities, in particular Kosovo Serbs, Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptians;The UNHCR Position Paper on the continued Protection Needs of individuals from Kosovo of January 2003 stated that especially Kosovo Serbs and Roma, but also Ashkaelia and Egyptians should continue to benefit from international protection in countries of asylum. UNHCR stressed that return of these minorities should take place on a strictly voluntary basis and be based on fully informed individual decisions. Any such voluntary return movements should be properly co‑ordinated, and re-integration should be supported through assistance to ensure sustainability. Kosovo Serb, Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptian individuals or families should not be forced or induced to return to Kosovo.The First Vice-President of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, recommended in his mission report of March 2003 “Roma Returns to Serbia and Montenegro” for the Council of Europe, inter alia that Roma asylum seeker/returnees (from Western Europe), who fled Kosovo, should not be returned to Kosovo unless they wish to return and they are advised by UNMIK and UNCHR that it is safe for them personally to return to their homes, andIn its report of 29 April 2003 - Serbia and Montenegro (Kosovo) “Prisoners in our own homes”: Amnesty International’s concerns for the human rights of minorities in Kosovo - Amnesty International urged inter alia host countries not to end international protection for all minority refugees from Kosovo and ensure that refugees still in need of protection were not subject in any way to pressure or inducement to “voluntarily return”. Amnesty International considered that the forcible return of members of minority groups to Kosovo would be a violation of the principle of non-refoulement and place minority individuals at risk.
It follows from a “Memorandum of Understanding” between the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for Kosovo of 31 March 2003 that approximately 33,000 members of ethnic minorities from Kosovo are required to leave Germany. It was agreed that certain members of specific ethnic minority groups were no longer in need of international protection and could therefore be returned to Kosovo, as from April 2003. In the first year Germany would return up to 1000 persons. This figure would include members of the Turkish, Bosnian, Gorani and Torbesh minority communities, as well as Ashkaelia and Egyptian minorities. As to the latter two groups of minorities, they would be returned depending on the results of an individualised screening process performed by UNMIK. Members of the Serb and Roma communities would not be returned in 2003.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that an implementation of the order to deport her to Kosovo will be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that being returned to Kosovo would amount to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The applicant maintains in particular that they should have been granted a residence permit in Denmark. Referring to the latest reports from UNHCR and Amnesty International they consider that UNMIK has not been able to provide minority groups the protection required. Moreover, in the applicants’ opinion the Danish authorities administer section 9 b of the Aliens Act too narrowly, in that allegedly a residence permit on humanitarian grounds will be granted only if the alien in question suffers from a mental disorder combined with a substantiated risk of suicide. Thus, in the applicants’ view the Danish authorities do not follow international recommendations to the effect that severely traumatised persons from Kosovo be granted international humanitarian protection.
The Court recalls that the final decision to refuse to grant the applicant asylum was taken by the Refugee Board on 19 August 2002, thus more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted to the Court. Moreover, the Court reiterates that the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs on 14 April 2003 refused to grant the applicant a residence permit pursuant to section 9 b of the Aliens Act, and that on 4 June 2003 the Aliens Authorities refused to grant her a residence permit pursuant to section 9 c of the Aliens Act. The applicant did not bring the first decision before the ordinary courts, nor did she appeal against the latter decision to the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs or bring it before the ordinary courts. Accordingly, an issue could arise under Article 35 of the Convention as to whether the applicant has complied with the six months time-limit and whether domestic remedies have been exhausted. However, the Court does not find it necessary to examine these issues, since in any event it finds the application inadmissible for the following reasons.
The Court recalls at the outset that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. A deportation or expulsion decision may, however, give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of the State, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled (cf. for example Vilvarajah and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, § 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of the unsettled general situation in a country is in itself insufficient to give rise to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., p. 37, § 111).
Moreover, while it is true that Article 3 has been more commonly applied by the Court in contexts where the risk to the individual of being subjected to ill-treatment emanates from intentionally inflicted acts by public authorities or non-State bodies in the receiving country, the Court has, in the light of the fundamental importance of Article 3, reserved to itself sufficient flexibility to address the application of that Article in other contexts which might arise. It is not, therefore, prevented from scrutinising an applicant’s claim under Article 3 where the risk that he runs of inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving country is due to factors which cannot engage either directly or indirectly the responsibility of the public authorities of that country, or which, taken alone, do not in themselves infringe the standards of that Article. To limit the application of Article 3 in this manner would be to undermine the absolute character of its protection. In any such contexts, however, the Court must subject all the circumstances of the case to rigorous scrutiny, especially the applicant’s personal situation in the expelling State (see e.g. Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2001-I and Arcila Henao v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003, unreported). According to established case-law aliens who are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance provided by the expelling State. However, in exceptional circumstances an implementation of a decision to remove an alien may, owing to compelling humanitarian considerations, result in a violation of Article 3 (see D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 794, § 54).
As regards the general situation in Kosovo, the Court notes that incidents of violence and crimes against minorities continue to be a cause for concern, and that the need remain for international protection of members of ethnic communities, notably Kosovo Serbs, Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptians. Consequently, the Secretary General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo has recently stated, among other things, that achieving sustainable minority returns to Kosovo is difficult, time‑consuming and resource-intensive. Over 2,200 displaced persons have returned in 2003 to areas where they are a minority (including 1,016 Kosovo Serb, 693 Roma/Ashkaelia/Egyptians, 242 Bosnians, 74 Gorani and 239 Kosovo Albanians). It is unclear whether these figures concern voluntary or forced returns. However, it is clear that forced returns to Kosovo is taking place and that such are carried out subsequent to an individualised screening process performed by UNMIK. In the present case the Court notes in particular that the Danish National Commissioner of Police has already presented to UNMIK a number of Kosovars whose applications for a residence permit in Denmark have been refused for which reason they were forced to leave Denmark. In some cases UNMIK objected to the return of the persons in question for which reason the Danish National Commissioner of Police suspended the return until further notice.
The Danish National Commissioner of Police has not yet contacted UNMIK as to the applicant in the present case since her forced return has not been planned yet. Thus, relying on the information provided by the Government, the Court is satisfied that in case UNMIK object to the return of the applicant, her return will be suspended until further notice.
In these circumstances the Court finds that no substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicant, being ethnic Bosnian, would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to Kosovo.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy