CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 100 August-September 2007 Elezaj and Others v. Sweden - 17654/05 Decision 20.9.2007 [Section III] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Proposed deportation to Albania where first applicant alleged his life was at risk because of a blood feud: inadmissible   The first and second applicants are a married couple and Albanian nationals. Their son, the third applicant, was born in 2004. In 2001 the first and second applicants entered Sweden and applied for asylum on the grounds that the first applicant’s life was at risk in a blood feud in Albania that had started in the 1950s. The Migration Board found that there was nothing to prevent the applicants from moving to another part of the country and so refused the application in a decision that was upheld on appeal. The applicants subsequently went into hiding and lodged a total of six further applications for a residence permit, none of which were successful. In the course of these proceedings they submitted documents purporting to show, inter alia , that the police were powerless to stop blood feuds and that the attempts of voluntary organisations at mediation had failed. The authenticity of certain of these documents was investigated by Swedish Embassy officials who reported that they were forgeries. It also came to light that the local Albanian police had no evidence of the existence of the alleged feud. After the last of these applications was rejected by the Migration Board in 2006 the first applicant was detained by the police and deported. However, he subsequently re-entered the country. The family remained in hiding. Inadmissible under Articles 2 and 3 – Various sources had indicated that blood feuds remained a problem in Albania. However, it had to be determined whether the applicants themselves ran a real risk. With respect to the question of the applicants’ credibility, the Court noted that when information was presented that gave strong reasons to question the veracity of an asylum seeker’s submissions, he had to provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged inaccuracies. The applicants had not provided any detailed information as to whether measures had been taken at the relevant time to try to prevent the feud from being executed, whether the threats had been reported to the police, whether any specific governmental or private authorities had been asked to assist in resolving the conflict, and if so, as to what measures had been carried out. It was apparent from the documentation that the alleged attempts at reconciliation could have been neither numerous nor lengthy and there were even doubts over the existence of some of the NGOs allegedly involved. Other documents relied on had proved to be forgeries and the local police had denied all knowledge of the feud. The applicants had thus failed to establish that the first applicant would face a real and concrete risk of being killed or that the Albanian authorities would not be able to provide appropriate protection: 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