Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3
February 1999
Pranjko v. Sweden (dec.) - 45925/99
Decision 23.2.1999
Article 4 of Protocol No. 4
Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens
Expulsions to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina of ethnic Croatians from Bosnia-Herzegovina: inadmissible
Article 3
Expulsion
Expulsions to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina of ethnic Croatians from Bosnia-Herzegovina: inadmissible
[This summary also covers the following decisions of 23 February 1999 against Sweden: Andric, no. 45917/99, Majic, no. 45918/99, Pavlovic, no. 45920/99, Maric, no. 45922/99, Andrijic, no. 45923/99, and Juric, no. 45924/99]
All applicants are ethnic Croatian from Bosnia-Herzegovina and hold both Bosnian and Croatian citizenships. They requested asylum in Sweden after having fled Bosnia-Herzegovina. These cases concerned the decision of the immigration authorities to deport them to Croatia after rejecting their requests. The authorities decided that the situation prevailing in Bosnia-Herzegovina made all deportations to that country impossible. However, the authorities noted that there had been no acts of warfare for some time in Croatia and that a cease-fire had been agreed upon between the contending parties. Therefore, expulsion to Croatia was possible and there was no apparent risk that the applicants be forced to take part in armed conflicts or not be afforded protection there. In the Pranjko and Pavlovic cases, the authorities stated that the two applicants could also be sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina, given that the majority of the population of their home-district was of Croatian origin.Furthermore, the applicants submitted medical certificates showing they suffered from psychological disorders which rendered their expulsion impossible.
Inadmissible under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4: Collective expulsion is to be understood as any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group. The fact that a number of aliens receive similar decisions should not lead to the conclusion that there has been a collective expulsion when each person concerned has been given the opportunity to put arguments against his expulsion to the competent authorities on an individual basis. In the present cases, each applicant submitted an individual application to the immigration authorities and was able to present arguments against his deportation to Croatia. The authorities hence took into account not only the general situation but also each applicant’s background and the risks allegedly facing him upon return. Moreover, in rejecting their applications the authorities issued individual decisions concerning each applicant’s situation: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 3: All applicants hold Croatian citizenship. Having regard to their statements, there are no indications that they would be subjected to ill-treatment in Croatia, and there is no evidence that they would be sent from there to Bosnia-Herzegovina unless the population in their home district is in majority of Croatian origin. Thus, there are no substantial grounds for believing that the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 upon return to Croatia, or, under certain circumstances, to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Furthermore, the police authority in charge of the enforcement of the deportation order takes into account the applicant’s state of health when deciding how the deportation should be carried out. Should an applicant be under compulsory psychiatric care due to his mental health, the deportation order could under no circumstances be enforced without the permission of the chief physician responsible for his care: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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