Information Note on the Court’s case-law 62
March 2004
Nasimi v. Sweden (dec.) - 38865/02
Decision 16.3.2004 [Section IV]
Article 3
Expulsion
Expulsion to Iran of a purported political activist in poor health: inadmissible
The applicant is an Iranian national of Kurdish origin whose sister is living in Sweden. After several failed attempts, he was granted visas to visit the country on two occasions. After his second visit, he applied for asylum, claiming that he militated in an organisation which was against the Iranian Government. He alleged that the authorities had discovered subversive journals at his home, which had led to his imprisonment for two years. A year after his asylum application, he submitted in writing that he had also been tortured whilst in prison. His wife and children subsequently joined him in Sweden and also applied for asylum. The Migration Board rejected the applications and ordered the family to be expelled to Iran. In the family’s subsequent appeals and applications for residence permits they submitted several statements from health professionals stating that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as an Iranian document, which was purportedly a summons to appear before a revolutionary court. The expulsion order was not suspended but its enforcement was stayed following the Court’s indication under Rule 39. Although the applicant’s health has deteriorated, he has not undergone the treatment prescribed by his doctor.
Inadmissible under Article 3: It was unlikely that the Iranian authorities would have granted the applicant permission to leave the country on two occasions had he been politically active against the Government. The applicant had not made any specific allegations of torture, nor had he submitted a copy of the revolutionary court summons until long after his initial application for asylum, which called into question the veracity of his statements and the risk of him being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in Iran. Whilst the expulsion order had caused the applicant considerable stress, this harm did not emanate from any intentional acts of the authorities in Iran nor had it been substantiated that the applicant had been traumatised by experiences in Iran. His removal from Sweden would therefore not involve a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s health condition.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy