CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 septembre 2005

.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 } .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. 78 September 2005 Hukić v. Sweden (dec.) - 17416/05 Decision 27.9.2005 [Section II] Article 3 Expulsion Expulsion to Bosnia and Herzegovina of a family who allegedly risked being persecuted, and whose younger child would not receive adequate medical care for his handicap if deported: inadmissible   The applicants are a Bosnian Muslim family which entered Sweden in 2003 and applied for asylum and a residence permit. They claimed that the younger child of the family, the fourth applicant, suffered from Down’s syndrome for which he received no treatment in their home country. Moreover, they alleged that the father, the first applicant, would not be safe if returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina as he had been involved as a member of a police unit in the arrest of a mafia criminal. The Migration Board rejected the application, considering that the purported threats and attacks had not been sanctioned by the national authorities, nor had the applicants shown that the authorities would be unwilling to protect him. As concerns the fourth applicant, medical care was available in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the availability of care of a higher standard in Sweden was not a reason to let the family stay. The Aliens Appeals Board upheld the decision. The subsequent new applications which the family lodged with the authorities were all rejected. The applicants have submitted medical certificates stating that the fourth applicant was reacting very well to the treatment he was receiving in Sweden, and that for this positive development to continue it was an absolute prerequisite that he remain in the country or in another Western country where he could receive the same treatment. Inadmissible under Article 3: Concerning the alleged risk of persecution, the applicants had submitted no evidence to substantiate their claims about past threats and harassment. Moreover, there were no indications that the attacks, in the event of their veracity, had been approved by the authorities or that these would be unwilling or unable to protect them. As regards the alleged irreparable harm to the fourth applicant as he would not receive treatment for his handicap in Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to information obtained in the case file, treatment and rehabilitation for children with Down’s syndrome could be provided in the applicants’ home town, although not of the same standard as in Sweden. Despite the seriousness of the fourth applicant’s handicap, Down’s syndrome could not be compared to the final stages of a fatal illness. Thus, having regard to the high threshold of Article 3, particularly where the case did not concern the direct responsibility of the State for the possible harm, the applicants’ deportation to Bosnia and Herzegovina would not be contrary to the standards of this provision. The present case did not disclose the exceptional circumstances required by the Court’s case-law to consider that the applicants’ removal would result in a violation of Article 3: 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