Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152
May 2012
P.Z. and Others v. Sweden (dec.) - 68194/10
Decision 29.5.2012 [Section V]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Six month period
Starting point for six-month time-limit in deportation cases under Article 3
Facts – The applicants, who are Afghan nationals, arrived in Sweden in 2007 and applied for asylum. Their application was refused in a decision that was upheld by the Migration Court. In September 2008 the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The applicants nevertheless remained in Sweden and lodged an application with the European Court in November 2010 in which they alleged that they would be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment if deported to Afghanistan. The Swedish Government argued in a preliminary objection that their application was out of time as, by virtue of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it should have been made within six-months of the Migration Court of Appeal’s decision of September 2008 refusing leave to appeal.
Law – Article 35 § 1: While the normal starting-point for the calculation of the six-month period was the date of the final domestic decision providing an effective remedy, the responsibility of a sending State under Article 3 of the Convention was, as a rule, incurred only at the time when measures were taken to remove the individual concerned from its territory. The considerations relevant in determining the date of the sending State’s responsibility were also applicable in the context of the six-month rule. It followed that the date of the State’s responsibility under Article 3 corresponded to the date the six-month period started to run for the applicant, so that where a decision ordering removal had not been enforced and the individual remained on the territory of the State wishing to remove him or her, the six-month period had not yet started to run. In the instant case, although the application to the Court was introduced more than two years after the final national decision, the deportation order had not been enforced and the applicants remained in Sweden. The six-month period had, therefore, not started to run.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(See also B.Z. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 74352/11, 29 May 2012)
© 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