CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 décembre 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 213 December 2017 A. v. Switzerland - 60342/16 Judgment 19.12.2017 [Section III] Article 3 Expulsion Proposed expulsion to Iran of Christian convert: deportation would not constitute a violation Article 2 Expulsion Proposed expulsion to Iran of Christian convert: deportation would not constitute a violation Facts – The applicant entered Switzerland in 2009 and applied for asylum on the grounds that he had been imprisoned and tortured in his country of origin (Iran) after taking part in a demonstration there. His application was rejected after the Swiss authorities found that his account was not credible. The applicant subsequently lodged a request for his asylum application to be reconsidered followed by an application for temporary admission on the grounds, inter alia , that he had converted to Christianity while in Switzerland and therefore was at risk if returned to Iran, which applied the death penalty for apostasy. His claims were rejected on the grounds that a person could only face a real risk of ill-treatment upon a return to Iran if his or her Christian faith had been manifested in Switzerland in such a way as to make it visible to the outside. Law – Articles 2 and 3: The general human rights situation in Iran did not, per se , prevent the deportation of any Iranian national. As to the applicant’s personal circumstances, notably his conversion from Islam to Christianity in Switzerland, the domestic authorities had found that, even assuming his conversion to be genuine and lasting, Christian converts would, in any event, only face a real risk of ill-treatment upon return to Iran if they manifested their faith in a manner that would lead to them being perceived as a threat to the Iranian authorities. That required a certain level of public exposure, which was not the case for the applicant, who was an ordinary member of a Christian circle (contrast with the position in the Court of Justice of the European Union case of Bundesrepublik Deutschland v.   Y and Z ( C-71/11 and C-99/11 , 5   September 2012), in which it was established that the persons concerned were deeply committed to their faith and considered public practice of it essential to preserve their religious identity). In the instant case, the applicant had been examined in person by the domestic authorities with regard to his conversion to Christianity, his claim had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction in two sets of proceedings and there were no indications that those proceedings were flawed. Having regard to the reasoning advanced by the domestic authorities and the reports on the situation of Christian converts in Iran and in the absence of any fresh evidence or argument, the Court saw no grounds to consider that the assessment made by the domestic authorities was inadequate. Accordingly, the applicant’s deportation to Iran would not give rise to a violation of Articles   2 and 3. Conclusion : deportation would not constitute a violation (unanimously). (Compare with F.G. v.   Sweden [GC] (43611/11, 23   March 2016, Information Note 194 ), in which the domestic authorities were found not to have carried out a thorough examination of the applicant’s conversion, the seriousness of his beliefs, the way he manifested his Christian faith in Sweden and how he intended to manifest it in Iran if the removal order were executed)   © 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