CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 octobre 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September-October 1991 Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom - 13447/87, 13448/87, 13165/87 et al. Judgment 30.10.1991 Article 3 Expulsion Decision to remove five Sri Lankan asylum seekers to Sri Lanka: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability of Article 3 in expulsion cases While the right to political asylum is not contained in the Convention or its Protocols, the decision by Contracting States to expel an asylum seeker may give rise to an issue under Article 3 where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. B.   Application to particular circumstances 1.   General approach In determining whether substantial grounds have been shown for believing the existence of a risk of Article 3 treatment, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu . The risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the State at the time of the expulsion, although subsequent information may be of value in confirming or refuting the State's assessment. The Court's examination of the existence of the risk must be a rigorous one. 2.   Assessment in the present case Substantial grounds have not been established for believing that the applicants would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to Article   3 treatment on their return to Sri Lanka in February 1988. By that time there was an improvement in the situation in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Moreover, under a UNHCR voluntary repatriation programme large numbers of Tamils were repatriated voluntarily to Sri Lanka. The evidence concerning the applicants' background and the general unsettled situation does not establish that their personal position was any worse than the generality of other Tamils or other young male Tamils who were returning to their country. A mere possibility of ill-treatment in such circumstances is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of Article   3. As regards the second, third and fourth applicants, there existed no special distinguishing features in their cases that could or ought to have enabled the Secretary of State to foresee that they would be ill-treated on their return. In addition, the removal of the fourth and fifth applicants did not expose them, by this fact alone, to a real risk of treatment beyond the threshold of Article   3. Conclusion : no breach (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION In the present case judicial review proceedings provided an effective degree of control over administrative decisions in asylum cases. The courts are able to review the Secretary of State's refusal to grant asylum with a view to determining whether it is tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. They have also stressed their special responsibility to subject such administrative decisions to the most anxious scrutiny, where an applicant's life or liberty may be at risk. Conclusion : no breach (seven votes to two).   © 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