Communicated on 3 October 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 30995/19
SHANMUGARATNAM
against Switzerland
lodged on 4 June 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the expulsion of the 5 applicants, a Sri Lankan family consisting of the parents (the first and second applicants), their son (the third applicant, born in 2004) and their twin daughters (the fourth and fifth applicants, born in 2011).
The first applicant (the father, born in 1971) entered Switzerland illegally for the first time in 1991 and applied for asylum. In June 2000 the SEM (Secretary for Migration) denied the applicant refugee status on the grounds that he was not credible, and also that the reasons for his flight were irrelevant to asylum, rejected his asylum application and ordered him to leave Switzerland. Instead of executing the expulsion, which was deemed unreasonable, the SEM ordered the applicant’s provisional admission within the framework of Humanitarian Action (HUMAK 2000). In July 2000 he married a Sri Lankan, G.S., (the second applicant), who had entered Switzerland in June 1997 as an asylum seeker. Her application for asylum had been denied in September 1998 and she had been ordered to leave the country. Because the execution of her expulsion was also deemed unreasonable, the SEM ordered the provisional admission of the second applicant as well, within the framework of HUMAK 2000. In 2004 the second applicant gave birth to the third applicant and in 2011 to the fourth and fifth applicants. In June 2013, the Biel Residential Services approved the family’s requests for extension of their residence permits for the last time and only with conditions and obligations.
In July 2016 the Biel Residential Services denied the extension of the residence permit and ordered the applicants to leave the country. They argued that the first and second applicants had set the grounds for revocation under Swiss Law with the comprehensive receipt of social assistance and numerous violations of public security and order. Their appeals to the Police and Military Directorate of the Canton of Bern and the Administrative Court of Berne were rejected. The Federal Supreme Court rendered an inadmissibility decision on 4 December 2018.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
Were the interests of the 15-year-old son sufficiently taken into account and, if so, to what extent?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy