CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mai 2017

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 207 May 2017 N.A. v. Switzerland - 50364/14 Judgment 30.5.2017 [Section III] Article 2 Expulsion Article 3 Expulsion Proposed deportation to Sudan of asylum-seeker who had carried on political activities in exile: deportation would not constitute a violation [This summary also covers the judgment in the case of A.I. v.   Switzerland , 23378/15, 30 May 2017.] Facts – The applicants are both active members of the Justice and Equality Movement (the JEM), one of the largest rebel organisations militarily opposing the Sudanese regime. A.I. is also a member of an organisation working for peace and development in Dafur (the DFEZ). They both applied for asylum in Switzerland, but the Federal Migration Office (now the State Secretariat for Migration – “the SEM”)   considered that they did not have refugee status and rejected their asylum applications and ordered them to be deported from Switzerland. Law – Articles 2 and 3: Since the judgment in A.A. v.   Switzerland , the Sudanese secret services could not be described as systematically monitoring the activities of political opponents abroad and, for the purposes of assessing whether individuals could be suspected of supporting organisations opposing the Sudanese regime and thus at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and torture in the event of deportation to Sudan on account of their political activities in exile, a number of factors had to be taken into account. With regard to the applicants’ reasons for fleeing, the Court could not identify any factors that would justify calling into question the assessment by the SEM, which had found that their allegations lacked credibility. There was no evidence that the Sudanese authorities had taken any interest in the applicants when they had still been living in Sudan or abroad, prior to arriving in Switzerland. The applicants’ membership of the JEM and A.I.’s membership of the DFEZ were, however, factors giving rise to a risk of persecution. The JEM was one of the main rebel movements in Sudan and the danger it represented in the eyes of the Sudanese authorities had increased on account of the legitimacy it had acquired in connection with the conflict in Darfur. a)     The case of N.A. – N.A.’s political activities in Switzerland had not really intensified for over three years and he could not be described as having a very exposed political profile as an opponent of the Sudanese regime. Accordingly, his political activities in Switzerland, being confined to merely participating in the activities of opposition organisations in exile, were not liable to attract the attention of the Sudanese intelligence services. He could not claim that he had personal or family ties with eminent members of the opposition in exile that might endanger him. Having regard to the foregoing, N.A.’s political activities in exile, which had been limited to merely participating in the activities of opposition organisations in exile, were not reasonably capable of attracting the attention of the intelligence services. Accordingly, he was not at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and torture on account of his activities in exile if he were to be deported to Sudan. Lastly, the Court did not find that there was a risk of persecution on grounds of the applicant’s ethnic background, as he had not alleged that he belonged to a non-Arab ethnic group in Darfur. Conclusion : no violation in the event of deportation to Sudan (unanimously). b)     The case of A.I. – A.I., who had already been involved in political activities to a non-negligible degree, had become even further involved over time, as could be seen from his participation in international conferences on the human-rights situation in Sudan, his articles criticising the Sudanese regime and his appointment to the post of the JEM’s media director. Whilst A.I. could not be described as having a very exposed political profile, particularly as he had never made a speech on behalf of an opposition organisation at those conferences, regard nonetheless had to be had to the specific situation of Sudan. As a result of his involvement with the JEMA, A.I. had regularly frequented leaders of the Swiss branch of that movement without, however, claiming to have personal or family ties with eminent members of the opposition in exile that might endanger him. However, both as an individual and through his political activities in exile, he had attracted the attention of the Sudanese intelligence services. He could be suspected of being a member of an organisation opposing the Sudanese regime. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds for believing that A.I. would run the risk of being detained, interrogated and tortured on his arrival at the airport in Sudan and that he would be unable to settle back down in the country. Conclusion : violation in the event of deportation to Sudan (unanimously). Article 41: no claim made. (See also A.A. v. Switzerland , 58802/12 , 7   January 2014; and A.F. v.   France , 80086/13 , 15   January 2015)   © 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