S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 15

February 2000

S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.) - 46553/99

Decision 15.2.2000 [Section I]

Article 3

Expulsion

Refusal of residence permit for Zambian national infected by HIV: inadmissible

The applicant, a Zambian national, was the wife of a diplomat of the Zambian embassy in Stockholm and lived in Sweden from 1990 to early 1994. She returned to Sweden later in 1994, after her husband’s death in Zambia. She applied for a residence permit, alleging that her husband’s relatives threatened her life and that she had been offered a job at the Zambian embassy. The immigration authorities, however, rejected her application. She lodged an appeal against this refusal, relying on the fact that she had contracted HIV and claiming that she should therefore be granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. The doctor she had visited several times reported that no treatment could be started unless she was given a long term residence permit. However, the applicant's appeal and further applications were all rejected. Her doctor delivered a certificate stating that her condition had deteriorated to such an extent that treatment had been started.

Inadmissible under Articles 2 and 3: Complaints under Article 3 are subject to close scrutiny when the source of the risk of proscribed treatment in the receiving country stems from 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 this Article. All the circumstances surrounding the case are to be scrupulously examined, especially the applicant’s personal situation in the deporting State. However, 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 that State. Only in exceptional circumstances will the implementation of a decision to remove an alien result in a violation of Article 3 by reason of compelling humanitarian considerations. In the instant case, the applicant’s medical status was diagnosed in 1995 and her anti-HIV treatment only recently started. The Swedish health authorities rightly concluded that, when assessing the humanitarian aspects of a case like this, an overall evaluation of the infected alien’s state of health should be made rather than letting the HIV diagnosis in itself be decisive. According to the Swedish embassy, AIDS treatment is available in Zambia. Furthermore, the applicant’s children and most of her relatives live there. Taking into consideration the conjunction of all these elements, the applicant’s situation was not such that her deportation would have amounted to ill-treatment: 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