CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 septembre 2013

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 166 August-September 2013 K.A.B. v. Sweden - 886/11 Judgment 5.9.2013 [Section V] Article 3 Expulsion Proposed expulsion of asylum-seeker to Mogadishu (Somalia) following improvements in general situation there: deportation would not constitute a violation   Facts – The applicant was a Somali national who entered Sweden in 2009 and requested asylum. He claimed that while living in Mogadishu he had received threats in particular from the al-Shabaab and that he would be at serious risk from them if he was to be returned to Somalia. The Migration Board found the applicant’s claims unsubstantiated and incoherent and therefore rejected his asylum request. It concluded that the applicant could relocate to Somaliland, where some of his family lived. That conclusion was subsequently upheld by the Migration Court. Law – Articles 2 and 3: The Court firstly examined the possibility of the applicant’s expulsion to Somaliland. However, it concluded that, given the lack of any clan connections there, the applicant would very likely not be admitted to that part of the country. The Court therefore had to examine whether his return to his place of origin –   Mogadishu   – would violate his rights under Articles   2 or   3. The situation in Mogadishu had changed since July 2011, when the Court adopted its judgment in the case of Sufi and Elmi v.   the United Kingdom* and concluded that all returns to Mogadishu would be regarded as incompatible with the Convention. Al-Shabaab had withdrawn from the city, which was now governed by a new administration. According to reliable international sources the general level of violence in the city had decreased, there being no frontline fighting or shelling anymore and the daily life of ordinary citizens had to a certain extent normalised. Moreover, the relevant country information indicated that people were returning to Mogadishu, although it was not clear to what extent. In those circumstances, the Court concluded that available country information did not indicate that the situation was of such a nature as to place everyone in the city at a real risk of treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention. As to the personal circumstances of the applicant, he did not belong to any group that was at risk of being targeted by al-Shabaab and he allegedly had a home in Mogadishu, where his wife lived. Moreover, he had failed to substantiate his allegations that he would be targeted if returned to Somalia as his submissions in that respect were incoherent and incomplete. Finally, the applicant had been heard by both the Migration Board and the Migration Court, which had carefully examined his claims and given extensive reasons for their conclusions. In such circumstances, the applicant had failed to make a plausible case that he would face a real risk of being killed or subjected to ill-treatment upon return to Somalia. Conclusion : deportation would not constitute violation (five votes to two). * Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28   June 2011, Information Note   142.   © 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